1995 (2) TMI 183 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 245/83 and concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 45/82 for 'Water for injection.'
2. Classification of the product under Tariff Item No. 14E and sub-heading No. 3003.19.
3. Rejection of appeal by Collector on classification and valuation grounds.
4. Dispute regarding Trade Mark usage and entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 45/82.
5. Challenge of lower authorities' orders on classification and valuation.
6. Remand of the matter to lower authorities for classification reconsideration.
7. Revenue appeal against valuation aspect.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the denial of exemption and concessional duty for 'Water for injection' under Notification No. 245/83 and 45/82. The Superintendent alleged duty evasion due to incorrect pricing, leading to a demand for differential duty. The Assistant Collector upheld the denial, but the Collector allowed the benefit under Notification No. 45/82, citing the officer's authority to correct misquoted notifications.

2. The Collector rejected the appeal on classification grounds, stating the appellant should have challenged the classification earlier. The appellant argued against the Superintendent's non-speaking order and claimed the product should be classified under Tariff Item 68 or sub-heading 3003.20, not 14E. They cited precedents and the Indian Pharmacopoeia to support their classification argument.

3. The Tribunal remanded the matter, emphasizing the need to address the classification issue first. The Tribunal found the Superintendent's order inadequate and highlighted the appellant's request for a reasoned order. The Supreme Court's judgment in a similar case supported the appellant's argument against Trade Mark usage affecting classification.

4. The Vice President's order settled the classification issue based on the Supreme Court's judgment. The product was classified as a 'medicament' under Tariff Item 68 or Heading 3003.20. The notification aspects were re-evaluated, and the benefit under Notification No. 234/82 was considered for the period under the old tariff.

5. The Vice President concluded that the valuation aspect and the revenue appeal became irrelevant due to the classification resolution. The demand for the period before 28-2-1986 was time-barred, and for the subsequent period, the statutory duty rate was nil, rendering no outstanding demand.

6. Ultimately, the Vice President accepted the appellant's appeal and rejected the department's appeal, closing the matter with a comprehensive resolution on classification and notification issues.