TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 447
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... falling under Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were issued with a show-cause notice on 20.6.2008 alleging that: - (i) during the period April, 2003 to March, 2005, they have recovered additional amount of Rs. 5,40,753/- by raising debit notes in addition to recovery of job charges but failed to discharge Central Excise duty of Rs. 88,521/-on the said amount; (ii) during the period from April, 2005 to March, 2008 even though the appellant used the brand name of others, but wrongly availed SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003- CE dated 1.3.2003 resulting into short payment of duty of Rs. 7,36,606/-, and the said amounts were proposed to be recovered with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the total demand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at they had recovered the entire amount from the customers. On the issue of affixing the brand name of the distributors, learned Advocate has submitted that under agreement with five distributors namely, (i) M/s Paris Medicaments, (ii) M/s Sun Medicem Pvt. Ltd., (iii) M/s Schrogen Pharma, (iv) M/s Vishal Pharma & (v) M/s Sacrosanct Healthcare, they have sold the product namely, P&P Medicaments. Interpreting the agreement incorrectly it was concluded by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant has sold the brand name to the respective buyers and hence they cannot claim the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2002. The learned Advocate has referred to the agreements entered with the respective buyers ann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ersion charges, whereas the excise invoices were issued for determining the duty payable on the assessable value of the product determined by the appellant. There is no recovery against the invoices and also by way of issuing debit notes. However, the appellant has admitted that the amount of Rs. 1,06,000/- was recovered towards administration and miscellaneous charges but the same was not considered in calculating the value of the product. Consequently, the appellant is required to discharge duty of Rs. 16,960/-. 7. As far as allegation of using other's brand name is concerned, we have carefully analyzed the agreements with respective distributors (page 23 to 38 of the appeal paper book) and noticed that these agreements are for sale-cum....