Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Bio Ethical Parma Pvt. Ltd on 13 October, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/344/2004-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 412/2003 dated 19/11/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore ] For approval and signature: HON'BLE MRS ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR ASHOK K ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Belgaum No. 71, Club Road, Central Excise Building, Belgaum 590 001 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus Bio Ethical Parma Pvt. Ltd. Hubli Karwar High Way, Kadankoppa, Kalaghatgi Taluk, Dharwad Dist. Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr Pakshi Rajan, DR For the Appellant None For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 13/10/2015 Date of Decision: 13/10/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR ASHOK K ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 22061 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA Being aggrieved by the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Revenue has filed the present appeal.
2. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. We have heard learned DR appearing for the Revenue.
3. The issue involved is valuation of the pharmaceutical products manufactured by the respondents out of the raw materials supplied by their customers. The assessee was discharging his duty liability by adopting the assessable value in terms of Ujagar Prints formula laid down by the Honble Supreme Court. It is seen that the proceedings initiated against the assessee were dropped by the original adjudicating authority and the Revenues appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was also rejected. Being undettered by the same Revenue has further carried the appeal before the Tribunal.
4. For better appreciation we reproduce the relevant paragraph from the order of Commissioner (Appeals).
I have gone through the records of the case carefully. The respondents have submitted that they had followed the procedure as per Notfn. No. 27/92 dt. 09.10.92 by filing authorization under the Notfn and maintained statutory records. Copies of various letters given by the loan licencees were produced during the personal hearing. Since the respondent is clearly a jobworker the adjudicating authority was correct in relying on the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ujgar Prints and Pavan Biscuits read with Boards instructions dt. 19.02.2002. Even the Board has reiterated its instructions in the clarification given on 01.07.2002. Therefore, the departmental appeal has no merits. The orders-in-original are legal and proper.
5. The Revenue in their memo of appeal has nowhere submitted that the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ujgar Prints and Pavan Biscuits is not applicable to the facts of the present case. They have also not rebutted the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) that the Boards circular relied upon by him is not in respect of the same dispute. We also find that the Tribunal decision in the case of Remidex Pharma Ltd. V. Commissioner [2006 (194) E.L.T. 228 (Tri.-Bang.)] stands upheld by the Honble Supreme Court as reported in Commissioner V. Remidex Pharma Ltd. [2007 (207) E.L.T. A183 (S.C.)], when the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected.
6. As such we find that the issue is finally decided and does not require any interference in the impugned order of the authorities below. Accordingly Revenues appeal is rejected.
(Order pronounced in open court) (ASHOK K ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER iss