9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n terms of Notification 234/82, dated 1-11-1982 in terms of Sl. No. 21 of the Table annexed thereto. 3 show cause notices were issued proposing denial of the benefit of the Notification and consequential recovery of duty. The details of the notices are under : 1. Show cause notice dated 9-9-1985 demanding duty of Rs. 2,97,322.60 for clearances during the period 1-2-1982 to 31-7-1985. 2. Show cause notice dated 25-4-1986 demanding duty of Rs. 5,13,850.05 for the clearances during the period 1-8-1985 to 31-10-1985. 3. Show cause notice dated 27-5-1986 demanding duty of Rs. 7,33,126.95 for clearances during the period 1-11-1985 to 28-2-1986. All the three notices were adjudicated by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay who held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and used as such or as an ingredient in any formulation. (emphasis supplied). The above Explanation makes it clear that the end use condition is incorporated in the Notification and, therefore, the benefit is available under Sl. No. 21 of the Notification only to bulk drugs used as such. Since the bulk drug was cleared by the appellants both to the drug manufacturers where they are used as such and to industrial consumers where they are not used as such, the benefit has rightly been extended only to clearances to the respective drug manufacturers. We, therefore, hold that duty is demandable from the appellants. 3.2 Availability of benefit of Notification 234/82 as medicine The product is being cleared in bulk, while medicines are cleare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Superintendent had no power or authority to issue the notice covering the period exceeding six months in view of the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The High Court held that since the period in respect of which the duty is demanded exceeds six months, there can be no doubt that the Department proposes to invoke the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A and that being so, only the Collector of Central Excise can issue a show cause notice. The Court quashed the show cause notice. In the second case, the Supreme Court has held that the show cause notice issued by the Superintendent taking recourse to wilful misstatement and suppression of facts with deliberate and wilful intent to evade payment of duty and the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onths from the date of issue and set aside the demand raised beyond six months on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 3.5 We may mention here that the contention of the learned SDR that the product in question is a mineral oil falling under T.I. 8 of the Central Excise Tariff as per the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Lubrichem reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 257 cannot be looked into, for the reasons inter alia that Liquid Paraffin I.P. which was the subject matter of the Supreme Court decision was found to satisfy the parameters of mineral oil covered by T.I. 8 while in this case, there is no such evidence, and secondly classification of the disputed product in this case was approved under T.I. 68 and the only issue be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
