9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; A classification dispute is involved in this case. According to the appellant (assessee), the various products manufactured and cleared by them during the period from September, 1996 to February 1999 are classifiable as Patent or Proprietary medicaments under SH 3003.10 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Revenue would contend that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esulted in demand of duty of over Rs 2 crores from the assessee under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act with interest thereon under Section 11AB of the Act. The present appeal is directed against the Commissioners decision. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the products in question have either therapeutic property or prophylactic property and hence they are appropria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered and it was held that those combinations of vitamins cleared under a brand/trade name and having prophylactic use were appropriately classifiable under Heading 30.03 and not under Heading 29.36. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunals decision to the contra in P and B Laboratories vs CCE 2004 (164) ELT 218 (Tri-Del) was overruled by the Larger Bench. It is contextually submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods have prophylactic uses, if not therapeutic. 4. After considering the submissions, we are inclined to allow this appeal by way of remand inasmuch as we have found that the lower appellate authority followed certain decisions of this Tribunal which were either overruled or reversed. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the decision in Ranbaxy Labs case, which was followed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
