9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit of Notification No. 339/86-C.E., dated 11-6-1986. 2. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of the notice. From the record we find that the respondents had filed cross-objection. In this case a show cause notice was issued on 30th August, 1990. Therefore, being an old matter is being taken for disposal in the absence of the respondents. 3. Learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the respondents are manufacturing disinfectors and marketing as `Oticare Aerosol Disinfector . He submits that Shri S. Dhaliwal, representative of the respondents gave a detailed description of this product and according to the description its main function is to sterilise a required area. He submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-C.E., dated 11-6-1986 in respect of disinfector and the applicability of extended period of limitation. First we deal with the classification of product. The representative of the respondents Shri S. Dhaliwal describes the product in question as under :- This product consists of a motor, suitable housing and rotating disc atomiser with integral pump, aerosol carrier fan, a bowl in a suitable housing made of aluminium or stainless steel. `Oticare aerosol disinfector is a compact, portable equipment used to convert liquid formalin into its true aerosol particles. The product is basically meant for atomising water and any other solvent based liquids such as, Kerosene, Finit, Formalin, Perfume, Dettol or any other liquid. Its main functio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 339/86-C.E., date 11-6-1986 provides exemption to humidifier. In the foregoing paras as we held that the product in question is not a humidifier nor the respondents produced any certificate from the authorities to show that it is a life saving equipment. Therefore, the benefit of notification is not available to the product in question. 9. In respect of the limitation the contention of the Revenue is that they were clearing the disinfector under guise of humidifier and this fact was not disclosed to the Revenue. We find that respondents vide letter dated 12-4-1986 disclosed the fact that they are going to manufacture disinfector and they requested to the Superintendent of Central Excise to advise them in respect of classification of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
