2001 (4) TMI 607 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of products VIMERAL LIQUID, VITABLEND WM FORTE, and OSTO CALCIUM.
2. Applicability of the proviso to Section 11A(1) regarding the demand of duty.
3. Allegations of suppression of information and misclassification.
4. Bar of limitation in raising the demand.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Products:
The primary issue in this appeal revolves around the classification of three products: VIMERAL LIQUID, VITABLEND WM FORTE, and OSTO CALCIUM. The appellants claimed these products as animal feeds under Tariff Heading 23.02, while the department contended that they should be classified under Heading 29.36 as 'Pro-Vitamins, Vitamins, and Hormones natural or re-produced by synthesis.'

The Collector's findings included:
- The products predominantly contain vitamins.
- Chapter 23.02 covers products of animal or vegetable origin, not synthetic preparations.
- Based on active ingredients, the products should be classified under Heading 29.36.

2. Applicability of the Proviso to Section 11A(1):
The appeal also examined the applicability of the proviso to Section 11A(1). The appellants argued that the bar of limitation should apply. The tribunal found that:
- The product Ostocalcium Vet was tested and approved by the Assistant Collector after detailed inquiries.
- The show cause notice did not provide evidence of deliberate misclassification or suppression of information.
- The tribunal relied on precedents like ESEI Industry & Chemical and Muzzaffarnagar Steel, concluding no grounds to invoke the proviso to Section 11A(1) for Ostocalcium Vet.

3. Allegations of Suppression and Misclassification:
The department alleged that the appellants deliberately withheld the composition of the ingredients to evade duty. However, the tribunal noted:
- The Assistant Collector had sought and received detailed information from the appellants.
- The classification lists were approved after due inquiries.
- There was no evidence of misleading or incorrect information provided by the appellants.
- The tribunal found no material to support the charge of deliberate intention to evade duty.

4. Bar of Limitation:
The tribunal examined the timeline of events and found:
- The demand was for the period 6/92 to 7/94, raised by a notice dated 20-5-1997.
- The tribunal concluded that the demand was barred by limitation.
- The tribunal found no justification for invoking the proviso to Section 11A for the period in question.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the products in question should be classified under Chapter Heading 2303 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as animal feed supplements, following the precedent set in the case of M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.