9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re issued six show cause notices by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-III Division on the grounds that the listed injections manufactured by them are dietetic and as per Chapter Note 4(a) of Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, dietetic products are excluded from Chapter 30 and they are properly classifiable under sub-heading 29.36 attracting duty @ 20% ad valorem up to February, 1997 and @ 18% ad valorem from March, 1997. The claim of the party to classify these products under Chapter Heading 3003.10 to attract duty @ 15% ad valorem was therefore, proposed to be rejected and a consequential differential duty totally amounting to Rs. 9,87,144/- was proposed to be recovered from them, in addition to the impositi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the party under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 173Q of Rules ibid. 3. The party preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad, but the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 1-5-2000 upheld the order passed by the lower authority rejecting their appeal. 4. The party has filed an appeal and stay petition against the above stated order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Their stay petition is listed to day for disposal. We have heard Shri J. Shankarraman, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri G. Sree Kumar, learned SDR, for the respondents. 5. The learned advocate for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Heading 2302 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not under Heading 2936. This decision of the Larger Bench of the CEGAT is given on taking into consideration a catena of decisions given earlier and also on taking into consideration the Explanatory Notes in the HSN on the subject. 6. Learned SDR for the Revenue, on the other hand, contended that the findings are clearly recorded in the Order-in-Original as well as in the appellate order that the products under consideration have no therapeutic value and they are only dietetic supplements and therefore, they have rightly been classified under sub-heading 2936. As regards the alternative contention of the appellants for classification of the same as food supplements for animals and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
