of Central Excise, Belgaum Vs. M/S Akay Cosmetics (P) Ltd
 Insc 214 (1
Variava, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan & S.H. Kapadia Kapadia, J.
is an appeal filed by the revenue under section 35-L (b) of the Central Excise
Act, 1944 (for short "the 1944 Act") against the decision of the
Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter
referred to as "the tribunal") dated 28.2.2000 in Appeal
Nos.E/Stat/77/2000 and E/122/2000, remanding the matter to the Commissioner
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 in respect of seven items of
expenditure, namely, secondary packing, turnover tax, freight, insurance, octroi,
handling charges and cost of bought-out items.
judgment and order dated 6.1.2000, the tribunal set aside the demand for
differential duty raised by the department for the period 1/88 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 expenditure for
the period 9/88 to 3/91. However, in view of the change in organizational
set-up under agreement dated 2.1.1991, the tribunal remanded the matter to the
Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the question of "related person"
under section 4(4)(c) of the said Act for the period 4/91 to 3/93.
by the decision of the tribunal dated 6.1.2000, the department came to this
Court by way of civil appeal under section 35-L(b) of the Act.
judgment delivered by this Court today in the case of Commissioner of Central
Excise, Belgaum v. M/s Akay Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.
[Civil Appeal Nos.3792-3803 of 2000], this Court has partly allowed the
department's appeal. However, the order of remand on the question of
"related person" during the period 4/91 to 3/93 has been upheld.
present appeal, 11 show-cause notices were issued by the department calling
upon the assessee as to why the deduction in respect of the above seven items
should not be disallowed for the period 4/93 to 6/97. Since the question of
"related person" had been remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) by the
tribunal under its earlier order dated 6.1.2000, the dispute on the same point
of "related person" for the period 4/93 to 6/97 was also required to
be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals). In the circumstances, we do not find
any infirmity in the impugned judgment.
concluding, we may point out that in the case of Commissioner of Central
Excise, Belgaum v. Akay Cosmetics (P) Limited reported in 2004 (167) ELT
253(T), it has been held that on and after 1.4.1991, the two entities, namely
M/s Akay Cosmetics (P) Ltd. and M/s Nemaru were not related persons.
the aforestated reasons, there is no merit in this civil appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.