TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (3) TMI 611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....more processing. However, to comply with Rule 96 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, the imported medicines are required to be labelled. In terms of the said rule, the following information is required to be cited on the label : - (a) Name of the drug in English, (b) Name of ingredients in English, (c) The Retail Price, (d) The name of the pharmacopoeia in which the drug appears, (e) Correct statement of net content in terms of weight, measure, volume, number of units (f) Content of active ingredient/s, (g) Alcohol content etc. 2. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not considered to be amounting to manufacture till it was revised by a fresh circular issued by the Board on 16-5-2001. The other issues raised by the learned Counsel is that Show Cause Notice dated 4-5-2001 has been issued without the prior permission/approval of the Chief Commissioner even though the duty demand is more than Rs. 1 crore and that no personal hearing has been granted by the Commissioner in respect of this Show Cause Notice in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel has also cited the following case laws in support of his submissions : - (a) Lakme Lever Ltd. - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 790 (T) (b) Oriflame India Pvt. Ltd. - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 966 (Sett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Platinum Private Ltd. v. Union of India and others - 1981 (8) E.L.T. 870 (Bom.) (s) H.M. Bags Manufacturers v. CCE - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (t) J.K.Cotton Spg.& Wvg. Mills Ltd. - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) 4. Shri M.K. Gupta learned JCDR for Revenue supports the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. He submits that in view of Chapter Note 5 to Chapter 30, the activity of affixing labels clearly amounts to manufacture and therefore the duty is demandable from the appellants. He also states that even though there was an earlier circular issued by the Board, the department is not barred from demanding duty in view of the retrospective amendment of Section 11A of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of the Board's own circular. The duty is not, therefore, demandable for the period up to 16-5-2001 and the Show Cause Notices which have been issued for the period prior to this date are not sustainable. It is surprising that the Show Cause Notices have been issued in this case on 3-8-2000 and 4-5-2001 before the Board withdrew its earlier clarification. When duty was not recovered as per a clarification issued by the Board, it would have been proper for the Board to direct the field officials not to demand duty for the earlier period and to move the Government to issue a notification under Section 11C the Central Excise Act, 1944 so that the matter could have been finally set at rest instead of the field officials raising demands and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-96 and before its reversal on 16-5-2001 are ab initio bad and we quash the same and set aside the impugned order passed in consequence of the said Show Cause Notices. 7. The learned J.C.D.R. has advanced an argument that in view of the retrospective amendment to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Finance Act, 2000 the demands are sustainable as the assessments have been done at nil rate in view of Board's circular of 1996. We are unable to accept this argument as the amendment made to Section 11A deals with cases where non-levy, non-payment, short-levy, short-payment, etc. have been made on the basis of any approval, acceptance or assessment relating to the rate of duty of excisable goods under any other provisions ....