9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... angalore [1998 (9) TMI 390 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], where it was held that preparation described under Heading 23.02 of CETA 1985 will be covered even if they are not obtained by processing vegetable or animal material - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/149/2007 - A/62115 /2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 5-12-2017 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Atul Handa, AR for the Appellant Sh. Udit Jain, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per : Devender Singh The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of bulk drugs under Chapter 29 of Central Excise Tariff Act. Among other bulk drugs, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Sr. No. 1 2 and at Sr. No. 3 4 were initially confirmed by the adjudicating authority. vide O-I-O No. 1/AC/CL/93 dt. 06.01.1993 and 49-50/AC/D/93 dt. 07.06.1993 respectively holding the classification of TMQ under sub heading 2941.30. The OIO at Sr. No. 1 2 on the party's appeal were upheld by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No. 291/CE/CHD/93 dt. 27.05.1993 and the OIO at Sr. No. 3 4 was also upheld vide O-I-A No. 518/CE/CHD/93 dt. 30.09.1993 as amended vide C. No. 428/CE/Appl/CHD/93/4154 dt. 11.10.1993. The CESTAT on party's appeal remanded these cases to the original adjudicating authority vide Final Order No. 558-560/99-C dt. 13.07.1999. Subsequent to CESTAT's remand order, cases at Sr. No.1 to 4 which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.2004 remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority with the directions to pass a fresh order after allowing cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner. Pursuant to the above final order, the adjudicating authority arranged the cross-examination of the chemical examiner and the adjudication proceedings were finalized vide O-I-O No.12/CE/AC/CHD/06 dt. 22.02.2006. In the said adjudication, the demand of ₹ 34,38,658/- along with interest was confirmed and also penalty of ₹ 8,50,000/- was imposed upon the party. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant filed the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide O-I-A No.1040/CE/CHD/06 dt 27.10.2006 set aside the O-I-O and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved from the same the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment of the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Tetraon Chemie (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2001 (138) ELT 414 (Tri. LB) was clearly distinguishable as the goods TMQ are different. He further contended that the appellants themselves cleared the manufactured products as TMQ under chapter Heading 2941.30 vide their classification list No.105/8889 and thereafter under heading 2302 vide their classification declaration from 22.09.1999. Hence, there cannot be doubt about the products beings goods about their marketability. The same were being transferred to M/s Teekay Menthol Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and who have declared the product TMQ as raw material/inputs for their final product TM100. 4. Ld. Advocate for the appellant reiterated the findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of brown coloured powder having the characteristics of organic compound and the note appended to it says that it may be considered as a derivative of tetracycline. The entire cross-examination clearly demonstrates that she proceeded on assumptions and presumptions and the test report is incomplete and the contentions of the appellants cannot be ignored. Therefore, no reliance on the test report can be placed. 8. The Revenue's main ground is that in their own document TMQ has been called as Oxytetracycline Salt and therefore being a derivative of Tetracyclines, it should be classified under Heading 2941.30. It is also contended by the Revenue that TMQ is an intermediate product. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in crude form and is not a pure antibiotic. In its findings he has admitted while trying to distinguish the case of Tetragon Chemie that the product TMQ cleared from Chandigarh is used as an input for the manufacture of TM 100. Therefore, once it is established that TMQ, an in-process material, is used as an additive to the animal feed supplement, classifying the same as antibiotics or derivates or salt of the same was erroneous. 10. Considering the manufacturing process and in-process nature of the material, we are convinced that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of Tetraon Chemie (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore (supra) wherein this Tribunal held as under:- 110. We have examined the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
