1998 (1) TMI 128 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under sub-heading 3003.11, duty evasion, penalty imposition, applicability of tariff advice, Chemical Examiner's opinion, limitation period, departure from department's advice, suppression of information, and adjudication process.

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, dealt with an appeal concerning the classification of Lykacetin Capsules and Lykacetin `S' Injections I.V. under sub-heading 3003.11 at a nil rate of duty. The jurisdictional authorities alleged duty evasion due to misclassification and suppression of information, issuing a show cause notice demanding Rs. 4,18,193.17 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000.00. The Addl. Collector confirmed the demand and penalty, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant's advocate argued that under the earlier tariff, certain medicines were exempted, citing specific notifications and Board's Tariff Advice. He contended that the Chemical Examiner's opinion did not definitively rule out the claimed classification, referencing a Madras High Court judgment to challenge the classification change without new evidence. Additionally, he argued that the limitation period issue was not adequately addressed by the adjudicating authority.

The respondent's representative defended the impugned order, but the Tribunal, comprising S/Shri G.A. Brahma Deva and J.H. Joglekar, analyzed the case meticulously. They found that the Board's advice applied despite tariff changes, emphasizing the inclusion of chloramphenicol sodium succinate in the exempted list. The Tribunal noted that the Chemical Examiner's opinion did not conclusively oppose the claimed classification. They referenced a Supreme Court judgment to assert the binding nature of Board circulars, criticizing the adjudicating officer for departing from clear advice without justification. The Tribunal also highlighted the failure to address the limitation issue and the lack of discussion on suppression allegations related to the injections.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting appropriate relief. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to Board advice, proper justification for departing from it, and thorough examination of all relevant aspects, including classification, limitation, and suppression allegations, in the adjudication process.