Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 10 October, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 6286 of 2004-EX[DB]
[Arising out of Order-In-Original No.12-15/CE/2004 dated 30.01.2004 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
Honble Mr. Manmohan Singh, 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?
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. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent
Chandigarh-I Appearance:
Shri R.G. Seth, Advocate for the Appellants Shri B.B. Sharma, DR for the Respondent Coram:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Honble Mr. Manmohan Singh, Technical Member Date of Hearing : 10.10.2013 ORDER NO . FO/ 58015 /2013-EX(Br) Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa(for the Bench):
The challenge in the present appeal is to penalty of Rs.5 lakhs imposed on M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001/-2002 read with Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 vide impugned order-in-original No. 12-15/CE/2004 dated 30.1.04 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh.
2. It is seen that vide the same impugned order demand of Rs.1.33 crores approximately was confirmed against M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty of identical amount. In addition, penalty of Rs.25 lakh was imposed on M/s. Cipla Ltd., Mumbai under Rule 26 read with Rule 209A . The said demands were confirmed and penalty imposed on the finding that M/s. Ranbax Laboratories has manufactured goods on behalf of M/s. Cipla Ltd., Mumbai and M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and they have to be treated as related persons and valuation of goods has to be adopted accordingly.
3. It is seen that appeals filed by M/s. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and M/s. Cipla Ltd., Mumbai against the same order-in-original No. 12-15/CE/2004 dated 30.1.2004 stand disposed of vide Final Order No. 978-979/2004 NB(A) dated 27.8.2004 and same were allowed by setting aside the impugned order-in-original. Inasmuch as the same impugned order-in-original already stand set aside in the above referred Final order of the Tribunal, we set aside the penalty of Rs.5 lakhs imposed upon the appellant and allow the appeal with consequential relief to them.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
( Manmohan Singh ) Member(Technical)
ss
??
??
??
??
2