9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14-9-2011 - Mr S.S.Kang, Mr.Sahab Singh, JJ. Appearance Shri Anupam Dighe, advocate for Appellants Shri V.K.Singh, SDR for Respondent Per : Sahab Singh M/s. Intervet Laboratories Ltd. (now known as Intervet India Pvt.Ltd.) hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants' are engaged in the manufacture of Veterinary Vaccines, Veterinary Pharmaceuticals and Veterinary Additives. During the relevant period, M/s. BAIF Laboratories Ltd. was undertaking the production of the goods which was taken over by M/s. Hoechst Roussel Vet Ltd. From October, 2000 the appellants continued this activity. The appellants were issued 2 show-cause notices one dated 4.12.2001 for the period Nov.1996 to July 2001 demanding duty of Rs. 34,75,764/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t classification under sub- heading 3002.00, now they concede to the stand taken by the Revenue regarding classification of the goods under chapter 28 of the CETA. Regarding the point of limitation, he contended that since the activity was known to the department and classification lists were submitted to the department under Rule 173B, the department cannot invoke the extended period of limitation. He therefore, submitted that the demand made under show-cause notice dated 4.12.2001 is time barred upto Nov. 2000 since the notice was served on the appellants on 5.12.2001. Since the department was fully aware of the classification of the product since 1995 in view of the various classification lists submitted by them and various monthly ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show-cause notice is time barred or not. As regards the classification of the product it is fairly admitted by the counsel of the appellants that the classification of the goods AHG will be under sub-heading 2818.10 as held by the Commissioner. The contention of the appellants that the extended period is not applicable in the present case is based on their submission that they have submitted the classification lists under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules as well as they were continuously submitting their RT.12 returns to the department. Therefore, no suppression can be invoked. This is a fact on record that the appellants were classifying the product under sub-heading 2818.10 prior to 15.9.95. They themselves reclassified the produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
