9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how-cause notice which invoked the larger period of limitation, alleging that the assessee had suppressed the correct composition of the product before the Department. There is also a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs on them. The present application seeks waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty and penalty amounts. 2.Ld. Counsel for the appellants claims a strong prima facie case on merits on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amrutanjan Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 500 (S.C.). It is submitted that the ingredients of the subject product, which were alleged to be synthetic chemicals extraneous to Ayurvedic system, did have Ayurvedic equivalents and, therefore, the presence of such ingredients should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has a strong prima facie case in claiming that the subject product is an Ayurvedic medicament falling under Sub-Heading No. 3003.30 of the CETA Schedule and attracting the benefit of exemption under Notifications 32/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989 and 9/93-C.E., dated 1-3-1993, covering the period of dispute in the case. 3.Ld. SDR, on the other hand, submits that none of the above four ingredients was shown to have been used in accordance with the procedure laid down in Ayurvedic texts and, therefore, the subject product could not have been treated as Ayurvedic medicament . Ld. SDR, in this connection, relies on the Supreme Court s Judgement in the case of Naturalle Health Products (P) Ltd. v. Collector [2003 (158) E.L.T. 257]. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, the question as to whether these ingredients were added in accordance with the Ayurvedic procedure will have to be examined carefully at the final hearing stage. Ld. Counsel has submitted that even this question may not be relevant to the period of dispute. This submission is based on a premise that the relevant budgetary changes brought to the Tariff entry in 1994 had no retrospective effect. This question, again, requires to be examined at the final hearing stage. We have also examined the plea of financial hardships raised by the ld. Counsel for the appellants. 5.The appellants do not seem to have a strong prima facie case. However, having found that the case involves a contentious issue and the appellants have financial difficu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
