2003 (9) TMI 597 - AT - Central Excise

Medicaments - Ayurvedic Veterinary medicaments - SSI Exemption - Brand name - Demand - Limitation

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under CETA, brand name dispute, limitation period for duty demand, imposition of penalty under Section 11AC.

In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issues revolved around the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), a brand name dispute, the limitation period for duty demand, and the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. The first appeal, E/58/02-B, involved a challenge by the assessee regarding the classification of various goods as Ayurvedic Veterinary Medicaments under sub-headings 3003.30 and 3003.39 of the CETA. The Tribunal considered evidence such as the Drug Licence and registration certificate obtained by the assessee, which indicated the goods were classified as drugs. The Tribunal upheld the classification under the said sub-headings based on the evidence presented.

Furthermore, in the same appeal, the issue of brand name and limitation was raised. The Tribunal noted that the assessees were accused of using brand names belonging to another company, but the matter was under dispute in the High Court. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had not properly considered all facts related to the brand name issue and directed a reexamination. On the question of limitation, the Tribunal held that there was suppression of material facts by the assessees, justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation for duty demand.

In the second appeal, E/188/03-B, the Revenue challenged the classification of products CALMIN and VIMIN under Heading 23.02 as animal feeds. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's contention, stating that the goods were not listed as drugs in the Drug Licence and were marketed as cattle feed supplements. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Heading 23.02 as animal feed supplements.

Conclusively, the Tribunal modified the impugned order in appeal E/58/02-C, sending the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on the brand name issue and duty and penalty liability. Appeal E/188/2003 filed by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the classification of CALMIN and VIMIN as animal feed supplements. The judgment disposed of both appeals accordingly.