2013 (12) TMI 1394 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of Goods - Chyawanprash Awaletha to be classified under Chapter Sub- Heading No.3003.30 of CETA 1985 as Ayurvedic medicaments OR under Chapter Heading 2107.91 or 2107.90 of CETA, 1985 as other edible preparations - Waiver of Pre-deposit Penalty under Rule 173Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944 Held that - Prima facie there was force in the contention in the argument that the same products of the assessee manufactured at other locations have been assessed as Ayurvedic medicaments by other Commissionerates - uniformity and certainty is an important cannon of Taxation - same goods be classified uniformly irrespective of its place of manufacture Thus the applicant could able to make out a prima facie case for total waiver of amount Pre-deposits waived till the disposal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of excisable goods - Chyawanprash Awaleha and Chyawanprash Awaletha Special under Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA involved the classification of excisable goods, specifically Chyawanprash Awaleha and Chyawanprash Awaletha Special, manufactured by the applicant. The applicant claimed the products should be classified as Ayurvedic medicaments falling under Chapter Sub-Heading No.3003.30 of CETA, 1985. On the other hand, the Department proposed to classify them as other edible preparations under Chapter Heading 2107.91 or 2107.90 of CETA, 1985. The applicant argued for uniformity and certainty in taxation, stating that the same products manufactured at other locations were classified as Ayurvedic medicaments by different Commissionerates, and no appeal or review was filed against these classifications by the Department.

The Ld. Advocate for the Revenue contended that the products manufactured at other factories of the Applicant might be different from the products in question, but failed to provide any evidence to support this claim. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found merit in the argument presented by the Ld. Sr. Advocate for the Applicant. The Tribunal observed that uniformity and certainty in taxation are crucial, and goods should be classified uniformly regardless of the place of manufacture. As the Department did not provide evidence to justify different classification for the same products, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Applicant, waiving the pre-deposit of dues and staying the recovery during the appeal process.

Considering the substantial revenue involved and the lengthy duration of the proceedings, both parties requested an early hearing, leading to the fixing of the appeal hearing on 21st August 2013. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of consistent classification of goods for taxation purposes and upheld the Applicant's plea for waiver of pre-deposit based on the lack of evidence supporting different classification for the same products.