TANMED PHARMACEUTICALS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have filed Stay petition and the appeal against Order -in -Appeal No. 72/2003, dated 20 -10 -2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has upheld the order of the original authority wherein duty of Rs. 1,05,580/ - has been demanded under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 from the appellants. They have also been imposed penalty of Rs 5,000/ - under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Interest has also been demanded in terms of Section 11AB of the Act. Since the issue lies within a narrow compass, we feel that the appeal itself can be decided dispensing with the pre -deposit of the amounts involved and we take up the appeal for decision.

(2.) SHRI S. Ignatius, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri B.L. Meena, learned SDR for the Revenue.

(3.) THE learned Counsel submitted that the appellants are a SSI Unit manufacturing P or P medicines and availing exemption up to Rs. 1 crore value as per Notification No. 8/2003, dated 1 -3 -2003. The appellants informed the jurisdictional Supdt. of Central Excise, on 3 -1 -2005 that two loan licensees also cleared medicines on their brand name after payment of full duty from the appellants' factory and the appellants would avail full exemption up to Rs. 1 crore on their own products for the year 2002 -2003. Even on 21 -6 -2002 they informed the jurisdictional officer, the fact of excluding the value of medicines bearing the brand names of the two loan licensees for computing the Rs. 1 crore value exemption limit. On 23 -8 -2002 they informed the Supdt. that they undertake only job work for the two loan licensees and pay full rate of duty on the products bearing the brand name of the loan licensees, by taking the assessable value as cost of production plus job work charges plus profit. However, the Supdt. issued show cause notice dated 26 -6 -2003 alleging that Para 3 of the notification which specifies type of clearances to be excluded for computing Rs. 1 crore value limit does not cover the branded goods of the loan licensees cleared at full rate of duty because the loan licensees have cleared medicines with the brand names of their own. The Dy. Commissioner in his Order -in -Original confirmed the duty demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) also in the impugned order has upheld the order of the original authority. Appellants are aggrieved over the impugned order and have come before us for relief on the following grounds: