NEHA COSMETICS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant challenges the order of the Principal Collector made on 29.12.1989 by which recovery of Rs. 3,60,089.84 was ordered under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that the appellant had suppressed the facts of having entered into an agreement with M/s Bakson Homeo Pharmacy and also suppressed the facts of the real assessable value. By the impugned order, the seized goods valued at Rs. 66,636/ - were confiscated and redemption was allowed on payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, besides imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/ -.

(2.) THE matter has come up after the remand order dated 29.11.2006 made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi restoring the appeal on the appellant's depositing the entire duty and penalty with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 02.01.2007.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the Revenue was that, the appellant was manufacturing the excisable goods (Arnica Hair Shampoo and Arnica Hair Oil) in the brand name of the buyer, who also was a manufacturer, and selling the goods under an agreement to the buyer at self adopted lower price of the goods so as to get undue benefit of the Notification No. 140/83 dated 05.05.1983. According to the Revenue, the benefit was not available to the goods where the manufacturer affixes the brand or a trade name of another person who was not eligible for grant of exemption. It was alleged in the show cause notice that, the agreement was made with M/s Bakson Homeo Pharmacy by the appellant, which is a sole -proprietorship concern, with a view to remain within the exemption limit of clearance of Rs. 5 lakhs, though M/s Bakson Homeo Pharmacy was also manufacturing these goods and claiming benefit of the said notification.