TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mand of duty of Rs. 86,84,707/- against M/s. Lacure Pharmaceutical Ltd. along with imposition of penalty of identical amount under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. In addition he has imposed penalty of Rs. 45 lakhs on Shri Sameer Udani, Managing Director of M/s. Lacure Pharmaceutical Ltd. and penalty of Rs. 22 lakhs stands imposed upon M/s. Vapi Care Pharma Pvt. Ltd. under the Erstwhile Rule 209(a). 2. As per facts on record M/s. Lacure Pharmaceutical Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Lacure) is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter 29 & 30 of the Central Excise Act. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 8-9-2000, who conducted various checks and verific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue on which duty was being discharged by them was arrived at on the basis of the input cost + conversion cost. M/s. Vapi Care Pharma Pvt. Ltd. further cleared the goods, after packing to M/s. Cadila Health Care by paying duty on the value shown in the commercial invoices raised by M/s. Lacure for sale of goods to M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals. 3. As the result of investigations made by the Revenue revealed that the orders were placed by M/s. Cadila Health Care on M/s. Lacure and M/s. Vapi Care Pharma Pvt. Ltd. was clearing the goods to M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals on behalf of M/s. Lacure, Revenue entertained a view that the clearances affected by M/s. Lacure to M/s. Vapi Care Pharma Pvt. Ltd. should have been made by paying excise d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hould have been paid by M/s. Lacure, as held by the Commissioner, is not in accordance with the provisions of law in as much as the appellant M/s. Lacure had cleared the goods to M/s. Vapi Care Pharma Pvt. Ltd. in terms of the permission granted by the Development Commissioner and on the basis of the assessable value arrived at on the cost structure basis. The Commissioner has nowhere disputed that the assessable value adopted by them on the basis of cost of the goods + conversion charges as not the correct value. The only reason for confirmation of demand against M/s. Lacure is that the goods ultimately stand cleared by M/s. Vapi Care Pharma Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals for which the appellant has raised the commercial invoices....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cals. 5. Learned DR appearing for the Revenue draws our attention to the reasoning adopted by Commissioner and submits that the goods were in fact manufactured by M/s. Lacure (except the packing) and by taking into account the overall facts of the case, the same stand cleared to M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals via M/s. Vapi Care Pharma Pvt. Ltd. As such the value of the goods arrived at by M/s. Lacure initially while clearing the goods in DTA to M/s. Vapi Care Pharma Pvt. Ltd. being much less than the value arrived at by them in the commercial invoices issued to M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals, the confirmation of differential duty by the Commissioner was justified. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the sides, we f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the adjudicating authority that such clearance of medicaments and packing material to M/s. Vapi Care Pharma Pvt. Ltd. under the scheme of loan licence was not in accordance with law. If the said assessee is entitled to clear the goods to M/s. Vapi Care Pharma Pvt. Ltd. by paying central excise duty on the correct assessable value, the fact that ultimately the goods were cleared by M/s. Vapi Care Pharma Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals on behalf of the appellant M/s. Lacure, would not change the scenario. In any case it stands contended before us that M/s. Vapi Care Pharma Pvt. Ltd. had paid the duty at the time of clearance of the goods by adopting the assessable value as reflected in the commercial invoices raisesd by M/s. Lacure t....