RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD. Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai -III.

(2.) THE appellants (formerly known as M/s. Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd.), Hosur are the manufacturer of Triclosan a bulk drug, which is used for manufacturing Pre -mix and Pre -mix, is further used in the manufacture of Dettol soap, shaving cream etc. The appellant M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to RCI) were issued a show cause notice demanding differential duty of Rs. 1,50,45,438/ - on the ground that they have under valued the product Triclosan. The correct assessable value for which was Rs. 2242/ - Per Kg. but it was sold at the rate of Rs. 1,200/ - per Kg. to M/s. Sodium Metal Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. VVF Ltd. Penalty was also proposed on the appellant for violation of various provisions of the Central Excise Rules. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner under the impugned order by which he confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,50,45,438/ - by taking the normal price of Triclosan at the rate of Rs. 2,242/ - per Kg. under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and imposed the penalty of Rs. 1,50,45,438/ - on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs under Rule 173Q(1)(a) of Central Excise Rules 1944.

(3.) THE appellants have challenged the findings of the Commissioner on various grounds. It was argued before us that this case was remanded to the Commissioner by the Chennai Bench of Tribunal under Order No. 445/2002 dated 22.3.2002. During the first adjudication proceeding under Order in Original No. 12/2000 dated 30.11.2000 penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs was not imposed on the appellants. Now penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs has been imposed under Rule 173Q(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules. This penalty cannot be imposed by the Commissioner as in the earlier proceedings this penalty was not there and the Commissioner cannot impose additional penalty during the de novo proceedings. This position has been consistently held by the Tribunal in various decisions.