Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1275 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - short-payment or recovery of differential duty - Altec Expectorant 100 ml - principal-to-principal sale - Held that: - he appellant has discharged duty liability by arriving at the assessable value wherein the appellant has considered cost of raw materials, packing material, cost of conversion charges and the profit margin. It is the case of Revenue that this price is very low considering the fact that M/s Lyka Hetero Healthcare Ltd has sold these products at a very high price - during the period in question, April 2002 to January 2003, P&P medicaments were not covered under the regime of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the duty liability was to be discharged under the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandated the determination of the assessable value after ascertaining the normal price. Secondly, there is no dispute that the appellant is manufacturing “Altec Expectorant 100 ml” on an agreement entered with M/s Lyka Hetero Healthcare Ltd. During the period in question, there is also a factual matrix recorded that the discharge of the duty liability by the appellant is on the raw material + packing material + conversion charges and the margin of profit. This formula for discharge of duty liability is for goods manufactured on principal-to-principal agreement, is a settled law by the apex Court in the case of Ujagar Prints [1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. We find that the entire issue stands covered by the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Ujagar Prints. There is no dispute that the appellant has discharged duty liability based upon the formula as has been settled by the apex Court in the case of job-work manufacturer - appeal allowed.
|