9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants. 2. Shri R. Swaminathan, learned Consultant, appearing on behalf of Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra and Shri K.K. Pandey submitted that the issue regarding classification of Himtaj Tel has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal vide Misc. Order Nos. 50-51/2001-C, dated 13-12-2001, 2001 (139) E.L.T. 610 (Tri.-LB) that according to the Larger Bench Himtaj Tel has to be classified as an ayurvedic medicine under sub-heading 3003.30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The learned Consultant, further, submitted that the Central Excise duty has been demanded from them for the period from 17-8-90 to September, 1995 under the show cause notice dated 3-9-97 and as such the entire demand is time-barre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was not acceded to and the impugned Order was passed on 31-10-2000. Finally, he submitted that they had also claimed the benefit of small-scale exemption under the relevant notification which had not been considered by the Adjudicating Authority. He, therefore, requested that the matter need to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for considering all these aspects and also for observing the principles of natural justice. 3. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of all other four appellants submitted that Shri Mohd. Aslam and Shri Mohd. Akram are partners in M/s. Azad General Stores and Shri Mukhtar Ahmad Munshi is their employee; that penalties have been imposed on them under the impugned order on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellants No. 1 and 2 and as they had failed to appear for hearing on one ground or the other, the Adjudicating Authority proceeded with the adjudication of the matter, and therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice; that Shri Ibney Hassan used to purchase goods worth Rs. five to six lakhs annually from appellant No. 1 since 1989 and as such has cooperated with the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in the evasion of Central Excise duty; that Mukhtar Ahmad, Mohd. Aslam and Mohd. Akram have admitted in their statements that diaries seized from their premises related to purchase and payment made by them to appellant No. 1 and as such the penalties imposed on them are sustainable. 6. We have considered the submissions of bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
