9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. 2. Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act. 3. Merits of the impugned order and limitation. 4. Nature of goods and end use for classification. 5. Financial hardship plea. Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with an application seeking the dispensation of the pre-deposit condition of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 63,27,000/- imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The demand was confirmed against the appellant, a manufacturer of Attar Hina Special and Attar Shamma. The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No. 167/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86, stating that the products were manufactured without the aid of power by steam distillation process. However, the Revenue argued that the goods were mixtures of essential oils used as raw material for other industries, thus classifiable under Heading 3302, attracting duty. 2. The appellant contended that the goods were essential oils manufactured by steam distillation of herbs and spices, classifiable under Heading 33.01. The appellant challenged the impugned order on merits and limitation grounds. The appellant's representative highlighted the manufacturing process and argued that the impugned demand was unjustified. The appellant also raised a limitation defense, stating that the notice issued in 2000 for the demand from March 1997 did not qualify for the longer limitation period due to a declaration submitted earlier. 3. The Revenue countered the arguments by stating that the appellants purchased essential oils from the market and mixed them for use as raw material in other industries. The Revenue asserted that the goods were mixtures of odoriferous substances, classifiable under Heading 33.02, used in the manufacture of beverages. The Revenue emphasized that the appellant's declaration did not disclose the exact nature of the product and its end use, supporting the demand for depositing the duty and penalty amount. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the entries under Heading 33.01 and 33.02, concluding that the goods in question were mixtures of essential oils used as raw material in the industry, falling under Heading 33.02. The Tribunal noted that the goods were sold to Gutka manufacturers and royalty was charged, indicating awareness of the end use. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument regarding the inability to track the product's ultimate use, as the goods were clearly being used as raw material for Gutka manufacturing. 5. In the absence of a strong prima facie case on merits and limitation, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs within 8 weeks, with the balance amount of duty and penalty dispensed with and recovery stayed during the proceedings. The Tribunal noted the lack of financial hardship plea from the appellant and based its decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the deposit directive.
|
