9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed by the Revenue. 2. In appeal No. E/58, the assessee has challenged that part of the impugned order vide which the classification of the goods in question viz. BLOTINOX, CATORRHOEA, CATGALL, DRESSOL, DEWORMIN, MAGGACITE, PROLLAPSE-IN, CATCOUGH, CATONE, DUGDH-DAN and UTEROTONE had been held to be under sub-heading 3003.30 upto 22-7-96 and under 3003.39 w.e.f. 23-7-96, of the CETA. The learned Counsel has contended that these goods cannot be classified under this sub-heading being not ayurvedic veterinary medicaments, but are classifiable only under Heading 23.02 as animal feed. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the findings of the adjudicating authority classifying these goods under sub-headings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder sub-heading 3003.30 up to 22-7-96 and under sub-heading 3003.39 w.e.f. 23-7-96 as Ayurvedic Veterinary Medicaments. We uphold the findings of the adjudicating authority regarding the classification of these goods. 6. In this appeal, besides the classification issue, the learned Counsel has also raised the issue of brand name and limitation. The Counsel has contended that the adjudicating authority has wrongly concluded that the assessees were using the brand name of another person on the goods being manufactured by them, especially when the dispute in that regard is still pending between them and another person in the Hon ble High Court of Delhi. He has also contended that the demand raised is time barred as all the material facts re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of limitation, the contention of the Counsel, in our view, cannot be accepted. There had been apparently suppression of material facts by the assessees from the Department. They had kept secret from the Department the fact of their manufacture of Ayurvedic Medicaments. They had been rather representing that the goods in dispute manufactured by them were only animal feed supplements. It was their duty to disclose honestly the true nature of the goods manufactured by them. Having kept concealed those facts, they had been rightly charged with the allegation of suppression of the correct facts from the Department and as such the extended period of limitation had been correctly invoked against them. 9. Therefore, the duty demand after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances, in our view, the adjudicating authority has rightly classified these goods under Heading 23.02 of the CETA as animal feed supplements. The impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority in this regard is perfectly legal and valid and we uphold the same. 12. In the light of the discussion made above, the impugned order in appeal No. 58/02-C stands modified as discussed above and the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for deciding the issue of brand name and thereafter the duty as well as penalty liability of the assessees/manufacturers, afresh after hearing both the sides. But appeal No. E/188/2003 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the impugned order to the extent to which it has been chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
