Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs C.C.E., Delhi Ii on 7 October, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing: 5.10.2016 Date of pronouncement : 07/10/2016 Central Excise Appeal No.854 of 2010 Arising out of the order-in appeal No.48/CE/D-II/2010 dated 16.2.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Appellant Vs. C.C.E., Delhi II .. Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri B.L. Narahimhan, Advocate for the appellant-assessee Present Shri Yogesh Agarwal, A.R. for the respondent/Revenue Coram: Honble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr.B. Ravichandran, Technical Member Final Order No.54019/2016 B. Ravichandran:
The appeal is against the impugned order dated 16.2.2010 of Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi II.The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pepfiz Effervescent Tables (Pepfiz) using, among other things, absolute alcohol/ethanol. The dispute arose regarding excise duty liability on the impugned goods under Medicinal and Toilet preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (the M & TP Act) or under Central Excise Act, 1944. For Central Excise levy, the pharmaceutical product and the medicament containing alcohol are excluded. The proceeding against the appellant to demand central excise duty on the impugned goods is on the ground that though alcohol is used in the manufacturing process it is not seen as ngredient in the final product. As such, in terms of Note 4 of Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff the impugned goods are not excluded from the central excise duty as they do not contain alcohol. The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs.16,23,386/- and also imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellant. The period involved is April and May 2004. On appeal vide impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the original order on duty demand. However, he set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant.
2. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. The central point of dispute is liability of the appellant for central excise levy by considering that the impugned goods do not contain alcohol. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellants were procuring and using alcohol in the manufacture of the impugned goods. The appellant also submitted a test report from M/s Analytical Testing Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, proving the presence of alcohol in the impugned goods. In fact, on the basis of such test report on the first round of litigation , the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand and remanded the matter to the original authority.
3. Regarding scope of the term containing alcohol, we find that the Honble Supreme Court had occasion to examine similar set off facts in Dabur India Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1990 (49) ELT 3 (sc).The Honble Supreme Court relying upon their earlier decision in Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The Excise Commissioner, U.P. & Ors. (1971 (1) SCR 590 held that in order to attract duty under the 1955 Act all that is required is that a medicinal preparation should contain alcohol. Alcohol may be part of the preparation either because it is directly added to the solution or it came to be included in it because one of the components of that preparation contained alcohol. The Tribunal in SBL Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Jaipur 2004 (172) ELT 271 (Tri-Del.) held as below:
5. A perusal of? the judgment of the Apex Court in Dabur India case makes it clear that the physical presence of Alcohol in the final product is not necessary to attract the provisions of Medicinal and Toilet Preparation (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. That is also not an issue in the present case since test reports of the appellants samples had confirmed presence of alcohol. We are merely noting this legal position only to show that the learned adjudicating authority has not correctly understood the judgment.
3. In the present case also, we note that appellant produced test report which indicated presence of alcohol in the impugned goods. Even otherwise, the usage of alcohol in the manufacturing activity of the impugned goods by itself is found to be sufficient in terms of the Honble Supreme Courts decision as above.
4. Following the ratio of the decided cases as above, we find no merit in the impugned order and accordingly, set aside the same . The appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 07/10/2016) (Justice Dr. Satish Chandra) President (B. Ravichandran) Technical Member scd/ Appeal No.E/854/2010 3