(A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III ________ Appellant
v.
M/s. Sangko Pharmaceuticals ______________________ Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5119 of 2006, decided on September 4, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The respondent-assessee herein had loaned its factory to one M/s. Cross Land Research Laboratories Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘M/s. CRLL’ for short) and during this period, it is the M/s. CRLL, who manufactured certain products. However, during investigation, it was noticed by the appellant-Revenue from Medical Pamphlet of Mobinak that the word “Crossland” is printed thereupon and also there is a picture of product “Mobinak Tab” manufactured by M/s. Guardian Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘GHCPL’ for short).
2. Show Cause Notices were issued in which excise duty was demanded from the respondent-assessee. After the assessee submitted its reply, demand in respect of three Show Cause Notices were dropped.
3. However, in respect of fourth Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice dated 04.05.1994, the Assessing Authority had passed orders confirming the demand. This happened before the dropping of the Show Cause-cum-Demand Notices in respect of other three notices. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘CESTAT’) has set aside the demand both on merits as well as on limitation.
4. We have gone through the matter and it is not even necessary to look into the matter in more details on merits inasmuch as we find that not only the three Show Cause Notices were dropped, but, insofar as fourth Show Cause Notice, i.e., Notice dated 04.05.1994, is concerned, which is for the period between April, 1989, to November, 1992, the CESTAT has rightly held that the said Show Cause Notice was barred by limitation.
5. The appeal is dismissed on this ground alone.
———
