1998 (6) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of products as drug intermediates under Tariff Item 68 and exemption under relevant notifications.
2. Admissibility of exemption claimed by the assessee.
3. Cross-examination of Dy. Chief Chemist and Chemical Examiner.
4. Compliance with the principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.
5. Time limitation for issuing show cause notice.

Analysis:

Classification of Products and Exemption Claim:
The appellant, a holder of a Central Excise license, classified 11 products as drug intermediates under Tariff Item 68 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 55/75, later superseded by Notification 234/82. However, the department disputed this classification, holding the products liable to duty under TI-68. The dispute revolved around whether the products were indeed drug intermediates. The appellant argued that the products were exempted from duty prior to the issue of the notification, emphasizing their classification as drug intermediates based on technical literature and references.

Cross-Examination and Compliance:
The appellant requested the cross-examination of the Dy. Chief Chemist, whose opinion was pivotal in the case. Despite this, the Chemist was not produced for cross-examination, raising concerns about the fairness of the process. The appellant also highlighted the lack of supply of the Chemist's report and the failure to allow cross-examination, indicating a violation of natural justice principles. Technical literature provided by the appellant was not adequately considered in the Collector's order, further underscoring the procedural irregularities.

Time Limitation for Show Cause Notice:
The show cause notice issued in 1985 referred to a period from 1981 to 1983. However, no allegations of fraud or suppression were made, rendering the notice time-barred under Section 11-A of the Act, as the six-month limitation period had lapsed. The absence of any such allegations weakened the department's case and supported the appellant's argument for setting aside the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal found that the department's reliance on the Dy. Chief Chemist's opinion without providing a copy of the report or allowing cross-examination was unjust. The failure to consider relevant technical literature and the absence of fraud allegations in the show cause notice led to the acceptance of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory limitations in excise duty matters.