LexCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM versus M/S. AKAY COSMETIC (P) LTD., HUMBLI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
--
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM
A
v.
MIS. AKA Y COSMETIC (P) LTD., HUMBLI
APRIL l, 2005
[S.N. VARIAVA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]
B
Central Excise Act, 1944;
Ss. 4(4)(c) and 35 (CJ/Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Tariff Heading C
3305.90:
Valuation-Levy of excise duty-Instant hair colour/Bigen-~Tariff
Heading 3305.90-Claim of deduction in respect of certain items of
expenditure-Held: In view of the change in the organizational set up of the
assessee, the question of related person ought to be decided first before deciding D
the claim of the deduction-Since the question was already answered by the
Supreme Court in another case between the same parties, appeal dismissed on
merit.
Respondent-assessee, manufacturer of instant hair colour, brand
name "Bigen", selling their entire production to Mis. Nemaru Coiffure (Ml E
s. Nemaru). There arose a dispute as to the valuation of the goods as the
assessee had claimed deduction of certain items of expenditure from the
assessable value for the period 1188 to 3/93. The Tribunal allowed the claim
for certain period and remanded the matter to Revenue to reconsider the
question of 'related person' due to change in organizational set up in order
to determine the duty for the remaining period. Hence the present appeal. F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : t.t. The Tribunal allowed the assessees' appeal claiming
deduction for the seven items of expenditure for the period 9/88 to 3/91.
However, in view of the change in organizational set~up under agreement G
dated 2.t.1991, the tribunal remanded the matter to the Revenue to
reconsider the question of "related person" under Section 4(4)(c) of the
Central Excise Act for the period 4/91 to 3/93. (143-AI
141
H
A
B
c
142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{2005) 3 S.C.R.
t.2. Since the question of "related person" had already been
remanded to Revenue by the Tribunal, the dispute on the same point for
the period 4/93 to 6/97 was also required to be remanded to the Revenue.
In the circumstances, no infirmity is found in the impugned judgment.
(143-E)
1.3. _This Court, later, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise,
Belgaum v. Akay Cosmetics (P) Limited held that on and after 1.4.1991, the
two entities, namely, Mis. Akay cosmetics (P) Ltd, the Respondent and his
sole distributor, Mis. Nemaru, were not related persons. Since the question
was already answered, the appeal is dismissed on merit. (143-F-G)
Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum v. Akay Cosmetics (P) Limited,
(2004) 167 ELT 253 (T), relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 336 of2001.
Form the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.2000 of the Central Excise,
D Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in F.O. No. 298/
2000 WZB in A. No. E/STAT/77/2000 and E/122 of 2000.
K. Swamy, Tufail A: Khan, Rupesh Kumar, P. Parmeswaran and B.
Krishna Prasad for the Appellant.
E
Anoop Choudhary and Rajesh Kumar with him for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KAPADIA, J. This is an appeal filed by the revenue under section.35-
F L (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the 1944 Act") against the
decision .:>f the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") dated 28.2.2000 in Appeal
Nos. E/Stat/77/iOOO and E/122/2000, remanding the matter to the
Commissioner (Appeals).
G
M/s Akay Cosmetics (P) Ltd. (assessee herein) was the manufacturer
of instant hair colour sold under the brand name "Bigen" falling under chapter
sub-heading 3305.90 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
They were selling their entire production to M/s Nemaru Coiffure (for short
"M/s Nemaru"). There was a dispute on the valuation of goods for the period
1/88 to 3/93. The assessee had claimed deduction from the assessable value
H in respect of seven items of expenditure, namely, secondary packing, turnover
- ...
I"
-
1~ ,
I
-~
.....
I,
'-
I
-
f---
-
C.C.E. v.AKAY COSMETIC (P) LTD., HUMBLI [KAPADIA, J.)
143
tax, freight, insurance, octroi, handling charges and cost of bought-out items.. A
By judgment and order dated 6.1.2000, the tribunal set aside the demand
for differential duty raised by the department for the period J/88 to 8/88 for
want of show-cause notice. By the said judgment, the tribunal allowed the
assessees' appeal claiming deduction for the aforestated seven items of
expeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.