2018 (11) TMI 737

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T.G. Rathod, Jt. Commr., (AR) ORDER Per: Raju This appeal has been filed by M/s. Beri Mercurio against confirmation of demand of Central Excise and imposition of penalty. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that they received mercury and after certain purification process, the same is cleared by them. He argued that a Show Cause Notice was issued to them alleging that they are....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dings was confirmed by the original Adjudicating Authority, however, the entire proceeding in that Show cause notice was set aside by the Commissioner (A). He pointed out that the order-in-appeal was accepted by the Revenue. He further argued that the Show Cause Notice in the impugned proceedings is identical to the Show Cause Notice in the earlier proceedings relating to seizure. He argued that s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cks of 150 to 250 kgs each. Whereas they were clearing the mercury in the pack of 34.5 kgs each. 4. We have gone through rival submissions. We find that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. 2005 (188) ELT 467(S.C.) has interpreted an identically worded note 5 to chapter 30 which reads as under: "2. Note 5 Chapter 30 has extended the meaning of 'manufacturers' and reads as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ontainers were "retail packs". Further interpreting the decision of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of BOC India Ltd 2008 (226) ELT 323 (S.C.) observed as follows: "6. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. reported in 2005 (188) E.L.T. 467 (S.C.), a two Judge bench of this Court while interpreting Note 5 ....