TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 4th April, 2001 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), New Delhi, whereby respondents have been discharged, be set aside. 2. Respondent No. 1 is a manufacturer of ayurvedic medicines . Respondent No. 3 is the Director of respondent No. 1. It appears that drugs manufactured by respondent No. 1 used to be marketed through respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 had been ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleged that respondents had been paying excise duty of 10% applicable on Ayurvedic medicines , thus, were evading excise duty. Show cause notices were issued for violating the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Adjudication proceedings were conducted for the different assessment period and penalties were imposed. 4. A complaint was also filed on the same facts be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground : (a) that the order of the Tribunal had been challenged in the Supreme Court and had not attained finality, (b) departmental adjudication proceedings were totally different than the prosecution of the petitioner, therefore, order passed by the Tribunal was of no help to the respondent. After considering the various judgments on the point in issue, ACMM concluded that since the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ysed all these products and noted that the products contained the elements having ayurvedic medicinal value. It was also noted rightly by the Tribunal that all these products were produced under the drugs licence issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 7. Products in question have been held to be Ayurvedic medicines covered under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and not the cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
