9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Excise Rules, 1944 declaring the goods Bulk Drugs and availed the benefit of exemption notification No. 6/94-CE dated 01.03.1994, 8/95-CE dated 09.02.1995 and 8/96-CE dated 02.03.1996. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 10,21,290.00 alongwith interest for the period 01.04.1994 to 28.02.1997 and imposed penalty on the appellant and also imposed penalty on the Director and Employee of the appellant company, appellants herein. It has also confiscated the land building, plant and machinery under Rule 173 Q (2) (a) of the erstwhile Rules and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 35,00,000.00. 2. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that it is a second round of litigation. The Tribunal by Final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification cited supra is satisfied if the bulk drugs find a mention in this pharmacopoeia as well. We find that the appellants have not taken this plea before the lower appellate authority nor has he submitted a copy of Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia, which he now submits before us. We find that the lower authority did not have the benefit of this evidence. The matter needs to be remanded with directions to the lower appellate authority who should take into consideration the decisions of the Tribunal cited supra and the copy of Martindale Pharmacopoeia now placed before us and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellants to be heard. The appeals are thus allowed by way of remand." 5. The Adjudicating Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escribing the products correctly and claiming them to be bulk drugs entitled to concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 31/88. We have perused the classification lists and find that all the 3 products in dispute were described as of technical grade. The classification lists were approved from time to time. In this view of the matter, the appellants cannot be held guilty of any suppression or mis-declaration of facts with intent to evade payment of duty, as they had given full description of the disputed products in the classification lists/classification declarations. We, therefore, agree with the appellants that the entire demand is barred by limitation as the ingredients of the proviso to Sec. 11A(1) are not attracted against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
