9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing no. 29.31, while the revenue seeks to classify the said product under chapter heading no. 39.05 of the CEA, 1985. The show cause notice was issued for demand of deferential Central Excise duty for the period 01-05-1995 to 31-10-1997, along with interest and also for imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority after following due process of law, confirmed the demand with interest and also imposed penalty. The first appellate authority after considering the contentions of appellant in the appeal before him, rejected the said appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the product "Povidone Iodine" is mentioned in IP or USP and hence they had classified the goods as falling under chapter no.29. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st were approved provisionally (as per exhibit B annexed to the appeal memoranda) were approved provisionally subject to the Chemical Examiner's report. Chemical Examiner report is stating that the product is chemically modified polymer; appellant did not challenge the Chemical Examiner's report. 9. We find that on merits that the appellant has no case as the very same product was imported by a manufacturer i.e. by Ifiunik Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) and classified under chapter 39 and paid Customs duty. Subsequently, they preferred a refund claim seeking reassessment of the goods under chapter no. 29. The matter travelled to the tribunal and by final order dated 08.02.1991, tribunal held that the product "Povidone Iodine IP/USP" will mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the classification lists to the authorities. As to classification list which were approved provisionally, revenue authorities have not followed the procedure like directing appellant to execute a bond with bank guaranty for provisional clearance of the goods, hence there cannot be any doubt that revenue authorities were aware that the appellant had classified this product under chapter 29 as per his understanding. We have no hesitation in holding that show cause notice dated 12.01.1999 is blatantly time barred, as during the relevant period show cause notice has to be issued within 6 month for demand of duty with the limitation period, for invoking the extended period, there has to be a positive evidence of misstatement and suppression of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
