Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
P&B Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs Commr. Of Cus. & C. Ex., Ahmedabad-Ii on 13 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(142)ELT453(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The appellants were not present. Earlier also on a number of occasions they were not present even when notice was sent through the department. I, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal on merits on perusal of the submissions made in writing and on hearing Shri Shaikh, the learned DR.
2. The assessees were availing of benefit of Notification 175/86 for certain goods and were also paying duty on certain pharmaceuticals under Notification 29/88. The demand of Rs. 1,08,745/- was made and confirmed and upheld on the ground that the value of clearances made under the other notification be added to the value of the total clearances to decide the value of first clearances under Notification 175/86 and when so done the short levy had arisen.
3. Before the Collector (Appeals) the assessee claimed that the goods benefiting from Notification 29/88 were not "specified goods". Revenue counters this by reference to the annexure to the Notification 175/86-C.E. The Revenue states that except for the brand name products no specified goods would be omitted for the purpose of computation of value of aggregate clearances.
4. The assessees are relying upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of CCE v. Power and Control -1992 (62) E.L.T. 662. The ratio of the judgment has not relevance to the facts of the case. On perusal of the notification, I find that the inclusion of the value of the goods cleared under benefit of other notification was also in terms of Notification 175/86.
5. The appeal does not succeed and is dismissed.