2019-GST - APL-CHD III ('Ill 311 gCftt

File No.APPL-COMMOCEXJ96/2019-GST - APL-CHD ¢ III f ('Ill 311 gCftt (3l1frc;r)

q5~t)lll ~ -qci flClI¢x 31 IgCfttl('Ill, ~oi)~I<? q5~11l xl\i1'{"q ~, ~ t1{,clIl-19,of1CfCx-1"Rfi, ~oi)~I(t)

If)T."fl.73IA/CEICHDI2018-~,. ,)8)0 ~'iiC!?' ,~S ~ \301lG ~ ~, 1944 cBT 't::fRT 35~ / fcmr ~, 1994 cBT 't::fRT 85 cfi 3RPRr

\ST. "WR ~, ~ (3llfrc;r), ~ l1lC'1 ~ fl C1 I Cfi,,! 3i I gCft11 C'1 <l, :q utp I if> m LfTftl

3l$l m<m CHD-EXCUS-001-APP- /5~-2019-20 ~ 10\ 10 \ Ii 6fq>{ ~/~ ~/'dlll~#1/'<i15I<lCfi ~/3t~ (d$-?i$1) ~ l1lC'1 10t flC1ICfi,,! 3ilgCft1IC'1<l/~ Baddi m LfTftl ~ ~ ~ 29/ACICEIBADDI/2018 dated 31.12.2018 iT ~ I

3i41C'1C!?C'lf Cl?T ~ ~ Mis Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. (Formerly known as Mis Dabur Pharma Ltd.), 19, HPSIDC, Industrial Area Baddi, Distt. Solan (HP)

"CfI) ~ ~ cfi ~ 3llfrc;r ~ \301lG ~ ~ xiC1ICfi"! ~ ~ -B ~ \301lG ~ ~,1944 cBT 't::fRT 35(6TT)/fcmr ~,1994 cBT 't::fRT 86 cfi 3RPRr cBT \JIT ~ t-I ~ ~ \301lG ~ ~,1944 cBT 't::fRT 35(6TT)/fctm ~,1994 cBT 't::fRT 86 cBT ~(3) cfi 3RPffl \N-r ~ ~ ~ 3lLfrc;r cBT ~ t- cfi ~ \JfA cBT ~ cfi (fR l1ffi cfi ~ fclxn \JIT ~ t- I ~ ~ cfi ~ 3lLfrc;r cBT ~ t \N-r ~ -B f.4clfuf ~ / xi C1 I Cfi,,! "CfIT 1 0 ~ 3i~ ~ c.fiqc;r ~ C'flTPTI 1"l"m % en wm) 11<) ~ cBT 10 ~ ~ ~ \301lG ~ ~, 1944 cBT 't::fRT 35~ cfi 3RPffl \Jfl1T Cfi "! C1 I 'i I 3i I C1 IS<l Cfi % I 3Rt fffilT cfi "'<iT2l "'<iT2l \301lG OO~ / fl C1 I Cfi,,! cBT ~ <:rr f.1ttRuT cfi \3 ~~ IS<l iT l1lC'1 cfi ~ cfi ~tr -B fcRfr ~ cp1 f.4tTtfur ~ cfi ~ fcn<J: 11<) f.1om <:rr ~ ~ ~ \301lG ~ 10t xi C1 I Cfi,,! ~ ~, ~ 1T1o, "\:12ll1- ~ CfC'1", ~.xfi.3iT. ~ 147-148, ~ 17-xfi, :qU~llif> -B cBT ~ ~ I ~) ~ ~ iT 3i1fu;r ~ t.~.-3/~.tt.-5 -B 1:1t-cl ~ -B crrm cBT ~ ~ 3tR ~ "'<iT2l ~ ~ cfi ~ 3i1fu;r cBT ~ "61 \N-rcBT -qf":q ~ (~ "Cf)+1 iT "Cf)+1 ~ l'll""! I fUl C'1 N;fr ~) "'<iT2l wft N;fr ~ I 3tR \Jffii ~ ~ 3i1fu;r ~8fUT -B LfTftl fcn<J: 11<) "61, "Xl1<lPluT<l'i ~ cfi ~ cfi -qf":q ~ (~ "Cf)+1 xi" "Cf)+1 ~ l'll""!lfUlC'1 N;fr ~)'4T wft N;fr ~I '1) 3lLfrc;r "CfI "'<iT2l ~ \301lG ~ ~,1944 cBT 't::fRT 356TT( 6) / fctc:r ~,1994 cBT 't::fRT 86 (6) cfi 3RPRr ~ cfi ~ -B Xi). ~ "6\i1R <:rr Xi). 1:1t-cl "6\i1R <:rr ~ "6\i1R ~ \ilT \N-r ~ -B ~ ~ 3i110UTC'1" cBT ~ t -B ~ ~ ~ -B lii<T 11<) ~ q fcRfr ~ \301lG ~ ~ m wm) 11<) ~ cBT ~ LR frrR ~ fcp Cffi 1:1t-cl "C'1rur ~ <:rr ~ "Cf)+1, 1:1t-cl "C'1rur xi" -q-=qrn "C'1rur ~ 3i~ ~ "C'1rur ~ xi" ~ t Vfm '4T '1T11C'1T "61, "'<iT2l "('1TfT "N'iT ~ I <:T6" ~ ~ ~'!silf¢C'1 ~ ~ m eft ~ ~ \ilT ~ cfi ~ cfi xi15I<lCfi "!fV1~I"! cfi 'Tel -B ~ "61 TI2D \Jffii ~ ft{)Tcl % qgt fcp X I ~ [j cp (1 ~ -B :pmR <ITr<l "N'iT ~ I 3lT¥C'1", ~ \301lG ~ m crrm 3i1fu;r <:rr CI5R-f 3i 16~ ~ 'i cfi ~ cfi ~ LR ~ ~ ~ ~ 6T<fi I

File No.APPL-COMMOCEXl96/2019-GST - APL-CHD

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER GST & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)

C. R. BUILDING, PLOT NO 19, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH C. No. APPL-COMMOCEXJ96/2019-GST-APL-C~~ Dated:.~

Appeal No. 731 A/CE/CHD/2018- ~ 53 ,.- ,_g ) ORDER-IN-APPEAL

Final Order No: CHD-EXCUS-OOI-APP- r~19-20

Mis Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. (Formerly known as Name of the Appellant Mis Dabur Pharma Ltd.), 19, HPSIDC, Industrial Area

Baddi, Distt. Solan (HP)

Order-in-Original No & 29/ACICE/BADDlI2018 dated 3l.12.2018 Date

Name of the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Baddi Adjudicating Authority

Amount of Central Rs 27,53,885/- Excise Duty involved

Amount of Penalty Rs 27,53,885/-

Period of Dispute September, 2015 to June, 2017

Mis Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. (Formerly known as Mis Dabur Pharma Ltd.) 19, HPSIDC, Industrial Area Baddi, Distt. Solan, (H.P.) (for brevity 'the appellant') has filed the subject appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 291 ACICE/BADDII2018 dated 31.12.2018 (for brevity 'the impugned order') passed by Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Shimla (for brevity 'the adjudicating authority') in the case of appellant. Accordingly, I take up the instant appeal for decision.

2. Briefly stated that the Appellant were registered with the department vide Central Excise Registration No. AABCD7720LXM002 for the manufacture of Medicaments, Injections and Capsules (Anti Cancer) falling under Chapter

1

File NO.APPL-COMMOCEXl96/2019-GST - APL-CHD

~ Heading No 30.04 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. 1985 (for brevity 'the CETA'). The appellant appeared to have contravened the

- prQvisions of Rule 4,5,6,8,9,10, 11 and 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for brevity 'the Rules') read with Para 3.2 of Chapter 11 of CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions, 2005 (for brevity 'the CBEC Manual') in as much as they had drawn and consumed samples for in-house laboratory for testing of quality and adherence to products specification and did not discharge the duty liability on these samples.

3. Para 3.2 of Chapter 11 of CBEC Manual deals with the procedures and liability of drawl of samples for test purpose which reads as under:

"3.2 samplefor test purposes

3.2.1 The samples of this category will generally include"-

(i) Sample drawn by in- house laboratory for testing quality and ad herence to product specifications,

(ii) Samples drawn for preservation for investigation of complaints; (iii) Samples drawn for test at other concerns and independent testing

agencies; (iv) Samples required to be sent to Revenue laboratories (Chemical Exam

iners) including Government Test Centres.

3.2.2 The assessee is required to maintain a proper account of receipts and the utilization of samples in the test, in the laboratory. The removal shall be in the same manner as the goods are removed for home consump tion. The manufacturer shall prepare invoice under rule 11 of the said Rules and make issue entries for the goods (samples) in the Daily Stock Account. Appropriate duty shall be paid by the assessee on these samples before their removal for the test purpose unless otherwise exempted by a duty exemption notification."

4. As per the above stated provisions of Para 3.2 of Chapter 11 of the CBEC Manual, a manufacturer who draws samples for use in the in- house laboratory, for testing quality and adherence to product specification under the provision of 'The Drugs and Cosmetics Act,' was required to maintain a proper account of re ceipt and the utilization of these samples in the test, in the laboratory. The re moval should be in the same manner as the goods were removed for home con sumption. The manufacturer should prepare invoice under Rule 11 of the Rules

2


~ and make issue entries for the samples in daily stock account (RG-l register) and pay appropriate duty on them before removal for test purposes, unless otherwise

. ex"'mpted by duty exemption notification.

5. It was observed that the appellant were drawing control samples i.e. sample drawn for preservation for investigation of complaints. On further enquir ies made from the appellant in the matter, it was revealed that in addition to the control samples, the appellant were also drawing samples for sterility tests (in house laboratory testing) for testing of quality and adherence to product specifica tion. These samples drawn by the appellant were classified under the category (i) of para 3.2.1 of Chapter 11 of the CBEC Manual, as detailed above. However, the appellant vide their letter dated 31.07.2017 provided details of samples drawn during the period 01.09.2015 to 30.06.2017 and also intimated that:

"They draw samples during the course of manufacture of unlabeled solu tion at processing stage before the product was entered in RG-J to look for the absence/presence of micro organism as per IP/BP/USP which was mandatory requirement for release of parental in the market as per IP/BP/USP and other countries pharmacopoeia. The whole quantity got fully exhausted during the testing"

6. Further, during the period from 09/2015 to 06/2017 the appellant had drawn sample for in-house laboratory testing valued at Rs. 4,58,98,0811- on which central excise duty involved comes to Rs. 27,53,885/-, which had not been paid by the appellant and the same were recoverable from them alongwith interest under the provisions of the Act. The appellant appeared to have contravened the provisions of Rule 4,5,6,8,9,10, 11 and 12 of Rules as on the said amount of samples drawn, they never assessed and paid central excise duty; nor maintained proper records i.e. RG-1 etc.; nor removed these samples under proper invoice re flecting therein the quantity/value; nor declaring the details of the same in the monthly ER-l returns filed with the department. Whereas the appellant had in timated to the department that they were not maintaining any records for such samples. Further, the appellant had neither disclosed to the department about the fact of drawl of the samples for in- house testing nor reflected the same in the periodical returns. However, this fact came to the notice of the department only after making enquiry from them in this regard. The appellant thus appeared to have suppressed the material facts from the knowledge of the department with in tent to evade payment of Central Excise Duty and hence appeared to be liable to penal action under Rule 25 of the Rules read with section 11 AC of the Act.

3


7. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2017 was issued to the appel- - Ian; proposing recovery of an amount of Rs. 27,53,885/- under Section llA of the Act: alongwith recovery of interest under Section llAA of the Act. Penal action under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section llAC of the Act was also proposed for the above mentioned contraventions. The said SCN was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority vide the impugned order whereby the said demand was confirmed alongwith recovery of interest. Penalty of the equal amount was also imposed on the appellant.

8. Being aggrieved, the appellant had filed the instant appeal against the above 010 on the grounds which interalia were summarised as under:

(A) THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A NON . SPEAKING ORDER AND IN COMPLETE VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE.

A.I That the Impugned Order had been passed by the Adjudicating Authority in exercise of his quasi-judicial functions.

A.2 That the present SCN sought to demand and recover excise duty from the Appellant in respect of samples drawn and utilized by the quality assurance department for in-house testing. Whereas the Adjudicating Authority had passed the Impugned Order observing that the samples so drawn were manufactured products and non-compliance amounts to improper removal/clearance of the manufactured goods.

A.3 That the Appellant had submitted plethora of case laws and evidences in support of the submissions made by them to the Adjudicating Authority which was overlooked without providing any specific reasoning for the same.

AA That no excise duty was payable on the samples as the sample were drawn, tested & exhausted before completion of the manufacturing process.

A.5 That as the levy on the samples was not established, the CBEC Manual did not apply. The SCN had overlooked various other provisions of the CBEC Manual, viz. Para 3.3. of Chapter 11, which had clarified that no excise duty was payable on the samples

A.6 That proper records were maintained by the Appellant and the provisions of the CBEC Manual were indeed complied with.

A.7 That interest and penalty was not imposable on the Appellant. A.8 That the Adjudicating Authority had merely sought to apply the decision of

the Ld. Commissioner in respect of the demand raised for the previous

4


, period without specifically undertaking any separate analysis as to the facts and evidences produced by the Appellant.

(B) THE SAMPLES DRAWN FOR INTERNAL TESTING WERE NEITHER MANUFACTURED GOODS NOR WERE ~TABLE. THEREFORE, NO DUTY COULD BE DEMANDED ON THE SAID SAMPLES

B.l That the entire contention of the Department was that the samples drawn and utilized by the Appellant for in-house laboratory testing were chargeable to excise duty. The Appellant had submitted before the Adjudicating Authority that pursuant to Section 3 of the Act, in order for samples to be excisable, they should first be established as manufactured goods. However, the Adjudicating Authority had failed to examine the same and directly jumped to conclude that the samples were leviable to excise duty for non-maintenance of records and accounts.

B.2 That the Appellant submitted that the levy of Central Excise Duty was on the manufacture of excisable goods under Section 3 of the Act which clearly stipulated that Central Excise Duty was payable only on the excisable goods produced or manufactured in India.

B.3 That Section 2(f) of the Act which defined 'manufacture' was interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and others reported in 1977 ELT (J199). Further, the charging section required that the product that comes into existence must be an excisable good as had been defined in Section 2( d) of the Act.

BA Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case ofMoti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad, 1995 (76) E.L.T 241 (S.c.), Union of India & Anr. v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., 1977 (1) E.L. T (J 199) (SC) =AIR 1963 SC 791.

B.5 That the duty was attracted not because an article was covered in any of the items or it falls in residuary category but it must had been produced or manufactured and was capable of being bought and sold. Reliance placed in the case of South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. & Anr. v. U.O.1. & Anr., 1978 (2) EL. T (J 336) (SC) =AIR 1968 SC 922,' Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd., 1963 Supp. (1) SCR 586 =AIR1963 SC 791 ); A.P State Electricity Board v. Collector of c. Ex., Hyderabad, 1994 (2) SCC 428 . The test of marketability was relaxed in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., 1986 (24) E.L. T 169 and it was held that, "in order to attract 'excise duty the article manufactured must be capable of sale to a

5


consumer'." It was reiterated in Hindustan Polymers v. Collector of C. E, 1989 (43) EL. T. 165.

- B.t: The above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed in the its subsequent decisions in the cases of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., 1997 (92) E.L.T 315 (SC) and Union of India v. Ahmedabad Electricity Co Ltd., 2003 (158) EL T 3 (SC).

B.7 It was further submitted that the Appellant like any other drug manufacturer in the country, was governed by the Drug Laws which made it mandatory that the manufacturer of the drugs specified therein must be the holder of the specified drug manufacturing license issued thereunder. The Appellant had procured drug licenses in form 25, 25-F and 28 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions, according to which they were drawing samples when they were still in the manufacturing process and before the manufacturing process gets completed i.e. before the RG-1 stage and therefore, the Appellant did not maintain details of the issue of the said samples in their RG-1 register. The Appellant still maintained certain records regarding the said samples, which showed details of the quantity taken, date of drawl, and value in compliance with the provisions of the Drug Laws.

B.8 That since the quantity of samples drawn by the Appellant was governed by the Drug Laws, the entire sample drawn was put to test and the entire quantity get exhausted in the course of the testing procedure.

B.9 That the manufacturing process involved subsequent steps of bottling and labeling with all specific details being described on the bottle to impart marketability to the goods, which the impugned samples never undergo. It was submitted that in the absence of the same a drug can never attain marketability. In this regard, reliance was placed on the case of Pepsico (I) Holding Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2008 (224) E.L.T 253 (Tri. - Mum.); CCE vs. Economic Explosives Ltd. - 2007 (218) E.L.T. 535 (Tri. - Mumbai) and Micropure Parenterals P Ltd. vs. CCE - 2014 (311) E.L.T. 741 (Tri. - Mum.)

B.lO In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal, Chandigarh, in the case of BBF Industries, Unit II v. CCE, Jammu & Kashmir, by way of its Final Order No. 6305112018 dated 06.09.2018, observed as under:

"4. Considering the fact that in this case the appellant were sending goods for testing in their own factory and the goods were not cleared for sale. Moreover without testing, the goods cannot be removed from the factory. In these circumstances, the goods were incomplete

6

File No.APPL-COMMOCEXJ96/2019-GST - APL-CHD

before the testing was done. Therefore, no duty could be demanded on the samples which had been destroyed during the course of

it. testing."

B.ll Reliance was also placed on the following judgments in this regard: • CCE, Panchkula vs. Malcom Pharmaceuticals - 2008 (225) E.L.T.

428 (P&H) • ITC Limited vs. CCE, Kolkata - 2006 (195) E.L. T. 179 (Tri. - Kolkata)

• Shree Warana Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sangh Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune - 2017 (2) TMI 937 - CESTAT Mumbai

• International Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ghaziabad - 2016 (10) TMI 451 - CESTAT Allahabad

• CCE, Nasik vs. Glaxo Smith/dine Pharma Ltd. - 2014 (10) TMI 377- CESTAT Mumbai ITC Limited vs. CCE, Patna - 2003 (151) E.L.T. 246 (SiC} B.22 . •

B.12 That the Appellant further submitted that since the impugned samples did not attain marketability they never become excisable goods and hence no duty was leviable on the same. The above submission finds support from the following decisions:

• Bayer Diagnostics India Ltd. v. CCE & Cus, Vadodara 2001 (133) E.L.T. 140 (Tri.- Mumbai)

• Amar Lulla v. CCE, Mumbai 2004 (172) E.L. T. 466 (Tri=Mumbai)

•

Bhansali Engg. Polymers. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai 1999 (114) E.L. T. 947 (Tribunal) Affirmed in 2002 (143) ELT A175 Glaxo Smith kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE 2001 (162) EL T 612 Manali Petrochemicals Ltd. v. CCE 2004 (167) ELT 434 Bezal Pharma v. CCE, Mumbai 1998 (103) ELT 449 Cipla Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai 2004 (64) RLT 823 34346120191Admn APL-CHD 301600 30 B.24.

•

• •

•

(C) NO DUTY WAS PAYABLE AS PER CHAPTER 11 OF SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO CBEC CENTRAL EXCISE MANUAL

C.l That the Appellant had submitted before the Adjudicating Authority that Chapter 11 of the Supplementary Instructions to CBEC Central Excise Manual, related to manufactured goods. As submitted before, the samples drawn by the Appellant, did not qualify as manufactured goods.

7


Consequently, Chapter 11 of the Supplementary Instructions to the CBEC Manual could not apply to the present case.

C.5-, Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant submitted that even assuming without admitting that Chapter 11 of the CBEC Manual were applicable still no duty demand could be fastened against the Appellant and placed reliance on Para 2 & 3 of the instructions where categorization of the samples have been done (Para 2.1; 3.2.1; 3.2.2 & 3.3 were referred).

C.3 That Para 3.3.1 clearly specified that no duty was leviable on the samples until these were cleared from the factory. Therefore, the demand for duty on samples drawn by the Appellant for in-house testing was against the instructions of CBEC as above. Consequently, the demand confirmed in the Impugned Order was liable to be set aside.

CA That the Appellant further submitted that under similar facts and circumstances in the Basic Manual of Departmental Instructions on Excisable Manufactured Products corrected upto 31.12.1979, the issue as to the dutiability of the samples was clarified by the Board. While listing out the various categories of the samples it was indicated that the samples could be drawn for trial or for test purposes.

C.S That the above clarification of the Board issued as early as 1979 would itself show that it was the practice in the Pharmaceutical Industry as in other industries to allow drawing of samples for testing in respect of any investigation of complaint and the demand confirmed under the Impugned Order was not sustainable.

C.6 That it was a settled legal position that Board circulars/ instructions were binding on the Departmental authorities. Reliance placed on the following case laws: • CCE Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries 2002 (139) ELT 3

(SC) (Constitution Bench) [Also followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of same assessee reported at 2002 (143) EL T 19 (SC).}

• Paper Products Ltdv. CCE-1999 (112) ELT 765 • CCE v. Usha Martin Industries -1997 (94) ELT 460 • Ranadey Micro Nutrients v. CCE -1996 (87) ELT 19

34346/2019/Admn-APL-CHD 36/600 35

C.7 In view of the above legal position, the Impugned Order confirming duty demand on the Appellant was liable to be set aside as incorrect and legally untenable.

8

File No.APPL·COMMOCEXl96/2019·GST· APL·CHD

- (D) PROPER RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED - HENCE NO EXCISE DUTY WAS PAYABLE

D.I That the Impugned Order had been issued as a consequence of the Appellant's defense to the allegations of the Department with respect to excise duty liability on samples drawn and utilized by the Appellant pursuant to requirements laid down under the Drug Laws. The Appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Authority had incorrectly held that proper accounts and records were not maintained, whereas the Appellant had been maintaining RG-l register in the manner prescribed. Further, the Appellant had acted under the bonafide belief that samples drawn by them were not manufactured goods and therefore not liable to be included in the RG-l register.

D.2 In terms of the provisions of the rules and the clarifications issued by the Board, no duty was payable on the samples drawn for the purpose of testing quality and accuracy of the product. In the Appellant's own case, samples were drawn in terms of the provisions of Drugs Laws, and the Appellant was maintaining proper accounts and records showing the drawl of samples in respect of each batch of medicine. These accounts and records periodically maintained by the Appellant clearly give details of the samples drawn, the quantity of samples etc.

D.3 The above requirements of law for maintaining separate records and accounts was also supported by the judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of fTC Ltd. v. CCE, 2003 (151) EL T 246 (SC) (supra).

DA The Appellant in the instant case had maintained all the records of the samples which were annexed to the reply filed to the SeN. Therefore it appeared that, the Impugned Order had been passed without acknowledging the said submissions and accordingly was liable to be set aside.

(E) THERE WAS NO REMOVAL OF GOODS IN THE PRESENT CASE. HENCE THERE WAS NO DUTY LIABILITY

E.l That without prejudice to the submissions made m the preceding paragraphs, it was submitted that there was no removal of goods in the present case therefore there was no duty liability.

E.2 That Rule 4 of the Rules provided that the manufactured goods shall not be removed from the factory without payment of duty. Thus, the said Rule provides for the payment of duty only in a situation where the goods are

9


removed from the factory, which should be paid in the manner provided under Rule 8 of the Rules. Therefore, in case the goods were not removed from the factory, no excise duty was payable on such goods.

E.3 That further, Rule 5 of the Rules provided that the date of issue of the goods for production shall be deemed as the date of removal. It would be relevant to note that the deeming fiction in Rule 5 relates to the date of removal. It had been held by plethora of judgments that a deeming fiction was an artificial creation of fact which may not exist. In the said rule, the deeming fiction was only restricted to the date of removal. The aforesaid rule did not deem the issuance of the goods for use in the factory to be 'removal'. Therefore, in the absence of such a deeming fiction, the goods issued for testing could not be said to have been removed. Reliance placed in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble CESTAT Mumbai in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, 2017 (35 O) E.L. T 283 (Tri. - Mumbai). Further, the appellant relied in the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the Appellant's own case - CCE, Chandigarli v. Dabur India Ltd., 2005 (182) ELT 185 (LB), affirmed by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court vide decision reported at 2010- TIOL- 831-HC-HP, where the Larger Bench has held that no duty was liable to be charged on the samples. Consequently, appeal of the Department was dismissed vide Final Order No. 1036-38/05-Ex dated 16.12.2005 on the ground, that there was no liability to pay excise duty on the said samples. The said decision although rendered in the context of control samples, the ratio thereof was squarely applicable to the case of samples for in-house testing also.

E.5 That the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh had further observed that the general rule in respect of samples drawn by an assessee was that the same should not be chargeable to duty. However, the exception to the general rule was that in the event the said samples were cleared from the factory or destroyed, they shall be assessed to excise duty as per the applicable rates.

E.6 However, the Adjudicating Authority had also failed to appreciate the position of law determined by the Larger Bench in the aforementioned cases. The Adjudicating Authority had dismissed the factual submission made by the Appellant and confirmed the demand raised under the SCN, on the ground, that, the Hon'ble High Court as well as the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal, in the aforesaid decisions, had held that duty as proposed under the SCN shall not be chargeable if proper accounts were maintained and that the said decision was passed in light of

10


control samples and not in respect of testing samples. E.7 That similarly, in the case of ITC Ltd. v. CCE Patna, 2003 (151) EL T 246

A (SC), in the context of dutiability of samples of cigarettes drawn for testing, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no duty was leviable on the cigarette sticks that was destroyed in the course of quality control test.

E. 8 That the Appellant also relied on the ratio laid down in Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v. CCE, Vishakhapatnam, [2008 (221) EL T 243 (Tri Bang)] wherein it was held that no duty was leviable on the drugs that are mandatorily required to be retained for testing.

E.9 Reliance was also placed on the following judgments: • JK. Industries Ltd. v. CCE 2003 (156) EL T 437 • CCE, Indore v. Bridge Stone India Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (337) E.L. T. 286

(Tri. - Del.) • CCE, Nagpur v. Economic Explosives Ltd. 2007 (218) ELT 535

(also affirmed by the Born HC in 2009 (242) EL T A86 (Born)] • Micropure Parenterals Pvt. Ltd. v CCE, Mumbai [2011 TIOL 176

CESTAT-Mum] • CCE, Chandigarh v. Unichem Laboratories Ltd. [2010 (251) EL T

235J • CCE, Hyderabad v. Gulf Oil Corporation Limited [2006 (201) EL T

433 (Tri Bang)] • ITC Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata- VI [2006 (195) ELT 179 (Tri-Kol)] • CCE, Hyderabad IV v. Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. [2007 (213) ELT

380 (Tri Bang)]

E.lO That on strength of the judicial pronouncements cited above, it was humbly submitted by the Appellant that the practice followed by them was well in accordance with law and stands reaffirmed by various judicial fora. The Impugned Order had been passed with utter disregard to the above-cited authorities and runs contrary to the settled position of law. On this ground alone, the Impugned Order was liable to be set aside.

E.ll That the Adjudicating Authority had failed to distinguish between the principle established and the application thereof and had merely concluded by confirming demand against the Appellant without attributing any logical reasoning for the same.

(F) PROCEDURAL NON-COMPLIANCE CANNOT PREJUDICE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS

11


- F.1 That without prejudice to the above arguments that the samples drawn by the Appellant did not amount to manufactured goods nor were they cleared

.., from the factory of the Appellant, therefore, they could not be liable to excise duty. That the Supplementary Instructions to the CBEC's Excise Manual, relied on by the Appellant was merely a guide towards the procedure for drawing of samples and maintenance of record for the purposes of determining excise duty liability however, it did not establish a pre-condition compliance whereof determines substantive rights available to the Appellant. Therefore, without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, mere non-compliance with instructions laid down by CBEC, substantive rights of the Appellant could not be prejudiced.

F.2 That since the impugned goods did not satisfy the condition of 'manufactured goods', the said Supplementary Instructions were not applicable in the present case. It had not been disputed by the department that the samples were not manufactured goods. Therefore, in the absence of such a dispute, the Supplementary Instructions could not merely be applied to the facts of the present case.

F.3 Attention was invited to the decision of the Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of MIs J D Engineering v. CCE, Delhi-I, 2015-TIOL-1841-CESTAT-DEL, where the Hon'b1e Tribunal was concerned with the question whether the assessee was eligible to claim benefit under an exemption notification when procedural requirement under the Excise Manual was not fulfilled.

FA Further, reliance was also placed on the following decisions where it has been held that Board's Instructions were not binding on the assessee or quasi-judicial authorities:

• Comm of Customs, Chennai-I v. Avenue Impex, 2014 (306) EL. T. 69 (Mad.)

• CCE v. Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd., 2014 (300) EL. T. 347 (Guj.) • CCE, Bhopal v. Minwool Rock Fibres Ltd., 2012 (278) EL. T. 581 (S.C.)

(G) THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO AVAIL CENVAT CREDIT ON ALL ELIGIBLE INPUTS, CAPITAL GOODS AND INPUT SERVICES.

G.1 That the Appellant submitted that even assuming without admitting that the samples drawn by them were covered under the definition of 'manufactured goods', still they were entitled to avail CENVAT credit of duties and taxes paid on eligible inputs, capital goods and input services in terms of

12


CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and could be adjusted such credit against the excise duty liability on the said samples.

(H) NO CONTRAVENTION OF CENTRAL EXCISE RULES

H.l That the SCN s alleged that the Appellant had contravened the provisions of Rule 4,5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 of Central Excise Rules and had been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Impugned Order which was completely baseless as the goods were not cleared at all by the Appellant and accordingly they had not contravened any statutory provisions.

H.2 That the excise duty was not payable on the samples drawn by the Appellant for the purposes of testing, as the said samples did not amount to manufactured goods and since the same were completely utilized by them in its own laboratory, there was not clearance of goods. Accordingly, no excise duty was payable on the samples at all. Therefore, there was no violation of this Rule.

H.3 That the point of taxation of excise goods clearance or removal of goods from a factory or warehouse was on the date when such goods were removed. It was reiterated that since the samples were fully exhausted within the laboratory of the Appellant, there was no 'removal' of goods from a factory of warehouse and accordingly, no excise duty was payable.

HA That as excise duty was not payable on the samples the requirement to assess the duty payable thereon did not arise.

H.5 That excise duty was not payable on the samples consumed by the Appellant. Therefore, there is no violation of this Rule. Similarly, Rule 9 and 10 were also not applicable to the Appellant as the Appellant was not manufacturing excisable goods as per the Act.

H.6 That in the present case, the samples were not manufactured goods and were not liable to pay excise duty. Further, the goods were not removed to any other person and therefore, the Appellant was not required to issue Central Excise invoices as per Rule 11.

H.7 That Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules provided that every assessee should submit to the Superintendent of Central Excise a monthly return in the form specified by notification by the Board, of production and removal of goods and other relevant particulars, within ten days after the close of the month to which the return relates. The Appellant submitted that the Appellant had been filing regular returns to with the department. Therefore, the allegation was factually incorrect.

13


H.8 That although it was submitted before the Adjudicating Authority that the samples drawn by the Appellant did not amount to manufactured goods the

- Adjudicating Authority had failed to provide any finding on the same. The Adjudicating Authority, by way of the Impugned Order, has confirmed the demand for penalty under Rule 25 of the Excise Rules without specifically giving a finding as to the contravention of provisions of Rule 4, 5, 6, 8 9, 10 & 11 of the Excise Rules.

H.9 Therefore, it appeared that the Adjudicating Authority without applying its mind had confirmed the penalty under Rule 25 without specifically discussing the provision which has been contravened by the Appellant.

(I) NO INTEREST CAN BE CHARGEABLE AND NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSABLE ON THE APPELLANT

1.1 That in the Impugned Order, in addition to demand of duty, had also confirmed the demand for interest under Section 11 AA and imposed penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Rules. Interest was not chargeable in the present case

I.2 That in the light of the above submissions, the Appellant submitted that since the demand against the Appellant itself was not sustainable, interest was also not imposable under Section 11 AA. No penalty imposable once no duty was payable

1.3 Reliance placed on the decisions in the case of Collector of Central Excise vs. H.M.M. Limited reported at [1995 (76) ELT 497 (S C)}, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Balakrishnalndustries [2006 (201) ELT 325 (S C)}.

1.4 Hence, the Impugned Order confirming demand of interest was liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

1.5 That the provisions of Rule 25 of the Excise Rules were subject to the provisions of Section 11 AC of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 25 of the Excise Rules could be invoked only when the ingredients for imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act were satisfied. In this regard the Appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon 'hie Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. Saurashtra Cement Ltd., 2010 (260) EL T 71 (Guj.) ,

1.6 That The Appellant submitted that from a bare reading of Section 11 AC it was evident that the said provision contemplates imposition of penalty when the ingredients such as intention to evade payment of duty or suppression, fraud, misstatement etc. were established on the part of the

14

--- File No.APPL-COMMOCEXJ96/2019-GST - APL-CHD

assessee. The Appellate Authority had failed to produce any evidence of suppression, fraud or wilful misstatement on the part of the Appellant. In the absence of such elements, penalty under Section llAC of the Act, if any, could only be to the extent of 10% of the excise duty demanded as per Section 11AC(a) of the Act.

1. 7 Without prejudice to the above, since all the transactions were recorded in specified records, penalty, if any cannot exceed 50% of the excise duty demanded as per Section 11 AC(c) of the Act. No positive act of suppression was shown by the Department.

1.8 The Appellant relied on the judgment of the Han 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mis Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut reported at 2005-TIOL-118-SC-CX, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmini Products Limited v CCE reported at 1989 (43) ELT 195 (SC) Further, the Appellant had always co-operated with the department and has always provided the details asked for by the department.

1.9 In this regard, the Appellant also placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the courts had been varying in imposing penalty where facts were already in the knowledge of the department:

• Jaiprakash Industries vs. CCE - 2002 (146) EL. T. 481 (S.C.) • Pahwa Chemicals Ltd. vs. CCE - 2005 (189) EL. T. 257 (S.C.) • Continental Foundation vs. CCE - 2007 (216) E.L. T. 177 (S.C.) • CCE vs. Damnet Chemicals Ltd. - 2007 (216) EL. T. 3 (S.C.) 1.17

It was therefore evidenced that the Appellant had not suppressed any information from the department and the Impugned Order was liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Appellant acted under Bonafide belief that the impugned samples did not attract excise duty. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v CCE reported at 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC).

1.10 It was submitted that in the case of bonafide belief no penalty was imposable. Reliance placed on the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 1978 (2) ELT (J159) (SC), Following its judgment in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1980 (6) ELT 295 (SC), held that penalty cannot be imposed when an assessee raises a contention of bona fide.

15


I.11 That it was submitted that the issues involved in the present Appeal ~ involves interpretation of complex provisions of the Central Excise Law

with the current interpretation being in favour of the Appellant. Therefore, in such a situation, the imposition of penalty was not justified. The Appellant relied on the following judgments in support of the contention:

• Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CCE 2006 (199) ELT 509 (Tri.- Mum) • NIRC Ltd. v. CCE 2007 (209) ELT 22 (Tri.-Del.) • Chemicals & Fibres oflndia Ltd. v. CCE 1988 (33) ELT 551 (Tri.).

I.12 That it was further submitted that in case of subsequent proceedings initiated by the Department, penalty could not be imposed against the Appellant. Reliance placed on Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE, A.p, 2008 (9) STR 314 (SC),

I.12 That from a bare perusal of the Rule 25 it was evident that the said Rule contained four sub-rules under which penalty was imposable. Each of the sub-rule contemplates different situation under which penalty was imposab1e. The Impugned Order did not even refer to the sub-clause of Rule 25 under which the penalty had been confirmed against the Appellant. Reliance placed in the case of Amrit Foods v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2005 (190) EL T 433 (SC).

I.13 That all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the departmental authorities, hence there was no question of suppression of facts, more so with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11 AC of the Act were totally inapplicable to the present case. Accordingly, it is humbly submitted that the Impugned Order should be set aside on this ground itself.

J. SPECIFIC REBUTTALS TO FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER

1.1 That at Para 1 to 3 the Impugned Order the Adjudicating Authority had merely reproduced the allegations contained in the SCN and the submissions made by the Appellant in respect of the present proceedings. The same merits no response.

1.2 That at Para 4.1 and 4.2 of the Impugned Order the Adjudicating Authority had merely summarized the issue before it and framed the question for determination by him as follows: "whether the samples drawn and

16


consumed for in-hose laboratory for testing quality and adherence to product specification by the Noticee were leviable to duty or not."

J.3 That finding at Para 4.3 of the Impugned Order, the Adjudicating Authority had stated that as the issue had already been decided by the Assistant Commissioner, Chandigarh for a previous period, vide its 010 No. 43- 47/CE/ADC(HBN)/CHD-1I2015-16 dated 29.02.2016 against the Appellant and demand had been confirmed, Adjudicating Authority accordingly shall decide similarly, for the Relevant Period.

J.4 Rebuttal: It was submitted that it appears that the Adjudicating Authority had merely relied on an order passed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner, in respect of the previous period, without itself undertaking any independent analysis of the change in factual scenario or the conditions under which the present SCN had been issued. The Adjudicating Authority had also failed to consider the specific submissions made by the Appellant before him, before passing the Impugned Order. Further, in respect of O-in-O dated 29.02.2016 relied on by the Adjudicating Authority, had been challenged by the Appellant by way of an appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide its Order-in-Appeal NO.CHD-EXCUS-001-APP-152-201S-19 dated 17.07.201S rejected the appeal filed by the Appellant. However, this order had also been challenged and was pending before the Hon'ble CESTAT, Chandigarh vide Appeal No. E/617511201S.

J.5 That the Adjudicating Authority had however, failed to consider these facts and merely applied an earlier order to confinn demand against the Appellant. Such non-application of mind results in a violation of principles of natural justice as it takes away the right of the Appellant to defend its present case.

J.6 Finding: At Para 4.4 of the Impugned Order, the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed demand on the basis that the Appellant was required to comply with the procedures as per the provisions of Para 3.2 of Chapter 11 of the C BEC Manual. Further that, the Appellant neither maintained proper entries in the daily stock account register for issuance of samples on account of receipt and the utilization of the samples nor appropriate duty had been paid before the removal of these samples for testing purposes. The Appellant was not maintaining the record of the actual consumption of the quantity of samples drawn and consumed during the in-house laboratory testing. Further that, the facts were squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ITC Ltd. (supra), hence duty was payable.

17

File NO.APPL-COMMOCEXJ96/2019-GST - APL-CHD

- J.7 Response: The Appellant did not record the particulars of the samples drawn and utilized in the RG-l register as the same had been taken before these samples attain manufactured stage. The Appellant had maintained the records of the samples drawn, quantity of samples drawn, etc. as per the applicable Drug Laws. As regards the duty liability of the Appellant on removal of the samples, it was most respectfully submitted that the samples had not been removed from the premises of the Appellant and were retained for testing within the premises of the Appellant. Since excise duty was leviable on removal of goods, the same was not applicable in the instant case. Further, the finding of the Adjudicating Authority regarding non-maintaining the record of the actual consumption of the quantity of samples drawn for in-house laboratory testing was patently wrong since the Appellant had clearly submitted before the Adjudicating Authority that the quantity of samples drawn was destroyed completely and thus, the quantity drawn was the quantity consumed in internal testing.

J.8 Furthermore, vide its letter dated 04.09.2009, the Appellant had clarified that it had not been maintaining proper records in respect of the samples as it was under the belief that there was no requirement for maintaining records for processing samples under the Central Excise Law.

1.9 It therefore appeared that the premise on which the Impugned Order had been issued is itself not well founded and lacks understanding of facts and law. Therefore, in light of the above, this finding of the Adjudicating Authority was untenable in law and should be set aside.

J.I0 That it was submitted that the Appellant had provided a catena of case laws in support of the submissions made by it before the Adjudicating Authority. However, the Adjudicating Authority had merely dismissed application thereof, without specifically rebutting the analysis of the Appellant nor discussed why the said judicial principles shall not apply to the present case. The Appellant has submitted (also hereunder) that the issue in the present case was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the Appellant's own case. Although the nature of samples may not be the same, the Appellant had sought to rely on the principle laid down by the said courts without specifically relying on the application to the facts of those cases.

1.11 However, while relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITC Ltd. (supra), the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the demand against the Appellant while holding that the present case is

18


squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this regard it was submitted that the said decision was not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said case, it was observed that manufacture of cigarettes was completed before its removal for test and after testing only packing of the same is undertaken.

J.19 That for the detailed reasons given hereinbefore, it was submitted that the demand confirmed and sought to be recovered was based on ill-founded principles of law rendering the Impugned Order as unreasoned and unsustainable. The Impugned Order is therefore liable to be set aside in its entirety.

9. Personal hearing in the case was held on 09.08.2019 which was attended by Ms Nivriti Raniwala, Advocate, Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, G.M. Legal and Internal Audit & Sh. Ranjit Chahal, Manager Taxation as authorized representatives on behalf of the company. During the course of personal hearing, they reiterated the submissions, as made in their grounds of appeal and filed written submissions alongwith compilation of case laws and law and procedures and requested to decide the case in the light of these.

10. I have gone through the details of the SCN, the 0-1-0 passed by the adjudicating authority, the grounds of appeal and the submissions made by the appellant at the time of personal hearings. The main issue to be decided in this case is whether or not the Samples drawn and consumed for in-house laboratory testing for quality adherence to product specification by the appellant are liable to Central Excise duty?

11. I find that the Appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Medicaments, Injections and Capsules (Anti Cancer) falling under Chapter Heading No. 30.04 of the CETA. During the period from September, 2015 to June, 2017 the appellant had drawn and consumed samples for in-house laboratory for testing of quality and adherence to products specification. It was alleged in the SCN that the appellant had not discharged their central excise duty liability on these samples drawn for in-house laboratory testing. Further, it was revealed that in addition to the control samples appellant was also drawing samples for sterility tests (in house laboratory testing) for testing of quality and adherence to product specification which are clearly classifiable under category (i) of Para 3.2.1 of chapter 11 of the CBEC manual. In this regard I find that the subject matter of the appellant is in dispute for over a period of time and has not attained finality till date. As such, recurring demand is being issued to the appellant by the department. The subject matter of the appellant has already been decided by this

19

File NO.APPL-COMMOCEXf96/2019-GST - APL-CHD

. appellate authority in favour of the revenue which is still pending decision with the Hon'ble CESTAT.

12. The appellant in their appeal has filed detailed submissions and cited numerous case laws/judgments in support to defend their case. The appellant has mainly contested on the point that no duty was leviable on the samples drawn for in-house laboratory testing and they were not required to maintain any records with regard to their accountal as the entire material gets exhausted during testing. Further, the appellant have contended that that since there was no clearance of the said material the question of levy of central excise duty does not arise and so is the applicability of interest/penalty thereon. The impugned order has been passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice mechanically, as such, the same is liable to be rejected outrightly. I do not agree with the contentions put forth by the appellant in their appeal in view of the discussions appended below:

12.1 T find that Para 3.2.2 of Chapter 11 of CBEC's Excise Manual of Supple mentary Instructions, 2005 deals with the procedures and liability of drawl of samples for the test purpose and the assessee is required to maintain a proper ac count of receipts and the utilization of such samples used in the test, in the labor atory. A manufacturer who draws samples for in house laboratory, for testing, quality, and adherence to product specification under the provision of 'The Drugs and Cosmetics Act,' is required to maintain a proper account of receipt and the utilization of these samples. The remcval shall be in the same manner as the goods are removed for home consumption. The manufacturer shall prepare in voice under Rule 11 of the said Rules and make issue entries for the goods (samples) in the daily stock account (RG-l register). Appropriate duty shall be paid by the assessee on these samples before their removal for the test purpose unless otherwise exempted by a duty exemption notification. The Hon'ble CESTAT Larger Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs Dabur India Ltd reported as 2005 (182) E.L.T. 185 (Tri. - LB), has also observed the similar view point in their decision, which reads as:

"Manufacturer can preserve the samples of their product for some period for investigations of complaints, if any. No duty should be charged on these samples but an account of such samples should be maintained in the pre scribed form. If at any time the manufacturer desires to clear these samples then these should be assessed to duty as applicable. Therefore, the control samples as long as these are kept in the factory and not cleared from there, these will not be chargeable to duty if proper account is maintained. When

20

File No.APPL-COMMOCEX/96/2019-GST - APL-CHD

these samples are cleared for test or for destruction at that time assessment should be made for duty, if any, leviable as per law. "

The aforesaid observation of the Tribunal was also supported and stumble on in the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs Dabur India Ltd reported as 2011 (267) ELT 452 (HP), wherein it has been discussed that such samples are allowed to be drawn for in-house testing, provided a proper account of receipts and the quantity utilized in the test is maintained in the laboratory.

12.2 Moreover, from the perusal of the submissions made by the Appellant I find that they are neither maintaining any records of these samples, nor issuing any invoices under Rule 11, nor making any entry in their Daily Stock Account, nor have submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate that they are main taining separate records for the drawl of samples for in-house testing. Whereas the judgments of Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delhi and the High Court, Himachal Pradesh discussed above, categorically mention that the duty will not be chargeable if proper accounts are maintained. Accordingly, the plea of the appel lants that the duty is not chargeable in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Himachal Pradesh, is not tenable.

Furthermore, Para 3.3.1 of Chapter 11 of the Central Excise Manual reads:

"where samples are required for the purposes specified at (iii), (iv) and (v) of paragraph 2.1 chapter 11, the procedure specified at paragraph 3.2 shall be followed. However, it is clarified that when a manufacturer pre serves the samples of their product for some period for investigation of complaints, if any, no duty should be charged on these samples considering that the goods remain within the factory. Duty shall be charged, unless ex empted by a notification, once the samples are cleared from the factory or if at any time the manufacturer desires to destroy these samples, procedure specified in Rule 21 of the said rules shall be followed. "

Thus, from the above findings, it is reasonably clear that appellant had fully utilized the Samples in testing within the factory, which got fully exhausted during the process of testing. As such, the same will be treated as goods cleared from the factory and hence, chargeable to central excise duty. Moreover, from the perusal of the appellant's appeal as well as their written admission (stated above),

21


• I observe that the appellant have not been maintaining any such account, hence are correctly held liable to central excise duty by the adjudicating authority.

12.3 Further, I find that Hon'ble Tribunal Mumbai in the case of Positive Pack aging Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of C. Ex., New Panvel reported as 2010(249) ELT 57 (Tri.-Mumbai) and the appeal as has been admitted in the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay [2015 (319) ELT A59 (Bom.)] reads as under:

"Samples, test samples - Dutiability - Samples drawn for testing quality and preserved for investigation of complaints - Samples after testing not brought back to the production but cleared as scrap without payment of appropriate duty - Duty payable in terms of para 3.2.2 of CBEC supple mentary instructions - Demand upheld - Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944. - Since the samples are not only preserved but also are drawn for testing quality the appellants are liable to pay appropriate duty on them before their removal for test purposes"

Since the samples are drawn for testing quality first and are thereafter pre served, in view of para 3.2.2 of the Boards' supplementary instructions will be ap plicable and the appellants are required to pay appropriate duty on these samples before their removal for test purposes by preparing invoice under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules and make issue entries for the goods (samples) in the Daily Stock Account. This is also supported by the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of ITC Ltd. [2003 (151) ELT 246 (SC)] in which it has been held that the sticks of cigarettes removed prior to packing for quality control test are liable to duty. The issue involved before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dabur India Ltd. Supra was regarding the duty liability on the control samples for medicine retained in the factory. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal held that the control samples retained in the factory are not liable to duty, if proper account is main tained. It was further held that if at any time the manufacturer desires to clear such samples then these should be assessed to duty as applicable. It appears that no testing was involved in this case. Para 3.3.l of the Boards' supplementary in structions also states that when a manufacturer preserves the samples of their product for some period for investigation of complaints, if any, no duty should be charged on these samples considering that the goods remain within the factory. Duty shall be charged, unless exempted by a notification, once the samples are cleared from the factory. Since in the case before us, the samples are not only pre served but also are drawn for testing quality, the appellants are liable to pay ap-

22


• propriate duty on them before their removal for test purposes in terms of Para 3.2.2 ibid .

•

12.4 I find that the appellant in their appeal has contended about the depart ment's justification of contravening the provisions of various Rules. In this regard I find that in view of various provisions of Rule 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Para 3.2 of Chapter 11 of CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions, 2005, the department has correctly estab lished violation of the said rules (for which the appellant has been issued recur ring SCN's) and accordingly, the demand against the appellant have been cor rectly confirmed by the adjudicating authority. As such they are also liable to penal action under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Act and I uphold the same.

12.5 Further, the appellant has contended that they had been regularly filing re turns with the department and as such they have not suppressed any facts from the department. In this regard I find that although the appellant have been filing periodical returns with the jurisdictional authorities but they could not specific ally establish that the fact of withdrawal of samples for in-house testing, have been categorically mentioned in the returns filed with the department. As such the department has correctly alleged the suppression in the SCN which was con firmed by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. Accordingly, I uphold the same.

12.6 As such, in view of the above statute of the provisions of the Law, Central Excise duty alongwith with interest is recoverable from them under Section llA and llAB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

12.7 Finally, the appellant have cited a catena of case laws and repeatedly stressed on various judgments, quoting selectively therefrom. Of-course, there are plethora of judgments on every issue, but facts of the matter vary from case to case and it is not in order to quote selectively with a view to draw a convenient inference. As such, I observe that the case laws quoted and relied upon by the appellant do not support their case.

13. I find that the appellant has failed to observe the provisions of law, so far as the facts of the case are concerned. The contraventions of various provisions of Central Excise Law stand clearly proved against the appellant, as such, duty, interest and penalty, as per above provisions of law is held to be recoverable/ imposable upon them. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order I uphold the

23

File NO.APPL-COMMOCEXl96/2019-GST- APL-CHD

~. same and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected.

• 14. In view of the above, the appeal of the Appellant is rejected and the impugned order is upheld. The appeal is disposed of, accordingly.

REGD.A.D. ~ Mis. Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. V (Formerly known as Mis. Dabur Pharma Ltd. 19, HPSIDC, IndI. Area, Baddi, Distt. Solan, (H.P.).

Digitally signed by SUMAN BALA Date:Thu Oct 10 17:26:36 1ST 2019 Reason :Approved J

~,4z::z:~:--

(Dr. SUMo ~ b~l) COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)

Copy to:

1. The Chief Commissioner (CZ), Central Goods & Service Tax, Chandigarh.

2. The Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate,

Shimla.

3.

4.

The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division, Baddi

\~. JJPlj ~ \0 \ I

SUPERINTENDE T (APPEALS)

Guard file.

24

2019-GST - APL-CHD III ('Ill 311 gCftt

Documents

Transcript of 2019-GST - APL-CHD III ('Ill 311 gCftt