Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad on 21 June, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No.E/980/2004-Mum. (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. RJB/M-III/493/2003 dated 14/11/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai-III ) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
authorities?
============================================================= M/s. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. :
Appellant VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad. :
Respondent Appearance Shri Vinod Awtani C.A. for Appellant Shri V.K. Agarwal, Additional Commissioner (A.R) for respondent CORAM:
Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President
Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 21/06/2012
Date of decision : 21/06/2012
ORDER NO.
Per : S.S. Kang
Heard both sides.
2. The applicant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the demand of Rs.96,695/- is confirmed for the period 1.4.2001 to 31.1.2002. The dispute is in respect of the valuation of physician sample. The case of the Revenue is that appellant had not included the cost of catch covers/boxes in the assessable value for payment of duty.
3. The brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pharmaceutical Products and also manufactured the physician samples and were cleared on payment of duty after taking into consideration 115% of the cost of production. The only dispute is whether while calculating the 115% cost of production the appellant taking into consideration the cost of catch covers/boxes.
4. Both authorities below held that appellants are silent about the inclusion of cost of catch covers/boxes in the assessable value.
5. The contention of applicant is that applicant filed a detail certificate showing the cost of production in terms of CAS-4 vide letter dt. 24.4.2003, which was duly received by the Revenue whereby the applicants produced evidence showing that the cost of catch cover in respect of 2X10 tablets was taken into consideration while arriving at the assessable value this evidence is not taken into consideration and the impugned order is passed confirming the demand against the appellant. As the appellant produced the evidence showing that cost of catch cover/boxes are already included in the assessable value of physician samples therefore the demand is not sustainable.
6. The Revenue submitted that as the appellant had not produced any evidence in support of their claim hence the impugned order is rightly passed.
7. We find that vide letter dt. 25.6.2003, the appellants submitted that the appellants are taken into consideration the cost catch cover which contains 10 tablets. Similarly in respect of the other products the applicants also show the cost of production containing 1 X 10 tablets including the cost of packing material. In view of the above, we find that the issue requires reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order is set aside the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
8. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
(Dictated in court) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President Sm ??
??
??
??
3