9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4) Pinmit Vet Powder (5) D.L. Tetramisole Powder (6) Sulphadiazin and (7) Trimethoprim Bolus Tablets and classified them under TI-68 of the Schedule to the Erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. They also claimed exemption under Notification No. 234/82 dated 1-11-1982 which grants full exemption in respect of animal feed and supplements. The Range Officer of Hosur Range issued a show cause notice on 10-12-1986 proposing re-classification of the items under TI 14E (P or P Medicines) stating that those veterinary products were not animal feed supplements and, therefore, not eligible for the exemption claimed, and demanded duty for the period from October 1984 to February 1986 under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded that what constitutes an animal feed supplement is set out in British Veterinary Codex 1965 (extract furnished) which classified even antibiotics and anti-infection agents when added in micro quantities to feeds for prevention of ailments they are to be considered as only feed supplements or additives and not as drugs. As against this, the Tribunal in its order cited supra has clearly held that the criterion to be applied for classification is the definition of patent or proprietary medicines as given in Explanation-1 to Tariff Item 14E and that the manner of taking the medicines i.e. with the feed is irrelevant. In the instant case also the products in question admittedly have therapeutic value with prescribed dosages are to be admini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is not correct for the Additional Collector to observe that the particulars as contained in the labels have been suppressed by the appellants. The fact that the labels in question (which contained the details of the composition of the items) were filed along with the classification list on 10-10-1984 and 27-6-1985 is revealed from the observations in the impugned order that the labels were kept in the records and files of the Excise Department. In paragraph 16 of the impugned order the Adjudicating authority states that at the time of adjudication the Consultant could not produce the labels for other items but I was able to produce the same from the past records. In order to examine the merits of the claim, I went through the printed la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the opinion of the Excise authorities the change in classification even if permissible would be effective only from the date of show cause notice. The Tribunal held that when clearances were made on approval of classification list, the demand can be effective only from the date of the notice and not for any anterior period. 5. In this view of the matter the demand for the period prior to the date of issue of the show cause notice is not maintainable. Therefore, the demand is set aside as being barred by limitation. 6. In the result we uphold the classification of the goods under TI 14E as ordered. However, we set aside the demand for duty on the ground of limitation. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
