9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Both the Stay Petitions are being disposed of together as the issue involved in both of them is identical. The dispute is as to whether the applicants product namely - Anhydrous Dextrose IP/BP/USP - is properly classifiable under Heading No. 29.13 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, or the same would be classifia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of the Tribunal s Order in the case of Anil Starch Products Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex., Ahmedabad reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 664 (Tribunal). The said decision of the Tribunal is based upon the Bombay High Court s decision in the case of Tata Exports Ltd. v. UOI reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 245 (Bom.) which, in turn, was confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. 4. Our attention has been dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anil Starch Products. On the other hand, in the case of Medopharm (supra), a detailed decision was given. 5. After considering the submissions of both sides, we find that the case of Medopharm is a judgment on the Central Excise side holding the product classifiable under Chapter 17. As such, we are of the view that the applicants/appellants have made out a prima facie case in their favour so a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
