TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ability under Section 4 of the Excise Act has not been addressed by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court. It has been clarified in the said order that the final order of CESTAT, dated 23.01.2018 as was under consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court along with the order of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, dated 18.02.2020 in relation to the duty liability under Section 4A stands confirmed. Pursuant to the said directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appeal is heard with respect to duty liability of appellant under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The facts of the case are as follows: 1.1 The department got an information that appellants are engaged in re-packing of various excisable goods (herbal and cosmetic products), affix....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed. 2. Arguments of both the parties heard. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the appellants are receiving goods (ayurvedic medicaments) from their manufacturers M/s. Davo Laboratories and M/s. Balchem Laboratories as a completely finished product which contains all essential details as required for retail sale of such goods under Drugs & Cosmetics Act and Weights & Measurement Act on which duty has already been demanded/confirmed and paid by the said manufacturers. It is further mentioned that putting wrappers/outer coverings by the appellant is only for safe transit and whole holograms have been put to avoid duplication. This activity cannot be called as manufacture, as has already been held by this Tribunal, Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wever, the same is not true for the remaining other products as mentioned above. Those are the cosmetic preparations as different from ayurvedic medicaments/pharmaceuticals. As per Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 33, the activity done by appellant amounts to manufacture and as such the appellants are liable to pay the duty of excise. The demand has wrongly been set aside by this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It was rightly confirmed by the departmental adjudicating authority. The said order has been prayed to be upheld by confirming the duty demand against the appellant. 6. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the record of the appeal memo, we observe that this Tribunal vide the Final Order No. 50353-50354/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the circular issued by the Board which has been referred by the Appellate Tribunal dated 08/12/2011 is very much applicable in the present case." Accordingly, the order of this Tribunal setting aside the demand confirmed by original adjudicating authority was confirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 7. We further observe that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opted to not to interfere with the findings as far as the "activity not being an activity of manufacture" is concerned. It has only been observed that issue of illegality of duty liability under Section 4 of Excise Act has not been addressed by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court that the matter is sent back to this Tribunal to adjudicate to the said extent of duty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 4, the duty of excise on excisable goods has to be assessed including the price actually paid to the manufacturer for the goods sold and the money value of additional consideration, if any, following directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee in connection with the sale of such goods. Thus, this section is applicable only qua the person who is the manufacturer of the goods and charges something extra for some additional activity done prior the sale of the goods manufactured by him. It is already confirmed on record that the activity done by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. It has also been held and confirmed that appellant is not the manufacturer of the goods sold by him. He is merely a trading and the advert....