Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (7) TMI 685

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the manufacture of the product namely UVA Lotion/Gel/Hyclean Cream, the package of the product and label states that product is to be sold by retail on the prescription of registered medical practitioner only. In such case the product can be administered by licensed cosmetologist, dermatologist or a qualified healthcare professional. It also states that the product is to provide comprehensive protection against UV rays that can cause skin damage, sun burn and skin cancer. As per the above facts the product prima facie classifiable under 3004 as medicaments - as per the nature of the product since the same being highly technical, a non technical person cannot be expected to arrive at conclusion about the classification of a product contai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rity. - HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR And HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. C L MAHAR Shri Anand Nainawati, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Tara Praksah, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The issue involved in the present case are as under:- (i) Whether the Appellants have rightly classified the product Suncros UVA Lotion/Gel/Hyclean Cream as medicaments under Chapter Sub-Heading No. 3004 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or whether the same is classifiable as cosmetics under Chapter Sub-Heading No. 3304 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985? (ii) Whether extended period of limitation is invokable in the case of show cause notice dated 06.03.2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sed only on the basis of EA-2000 audit therefore there is no suppression of fact. Hence the major demand under extended period is liable to be set aside only on limitation. In support his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments:- CCE v. Ciens Laboratories- 2013 (295) ELT 3 (SC) Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd Vs CCE- 2006 (196) ELT 3 (SC) CCE Vs Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd- 2012 (277) ELT 299 (SC) Griffon Laboratories Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE 2003 (156) ELT 787 (T) Affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India 2004 (164) ELT A-32 (SC) Dabur India Ltd Vs CCE- 2009 (236) ELT 506 (T) Affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India- 2012 (283) ELT A-112 (SC) VVF Ltd Vs CCE- 2016 (334) ELT 579 (SC) Sujanil Chemo Industries Vs CCE-2005 (181 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... I 714-CESTAT Narmada Bio Chem Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE- 2019 (370) ELT 1276 (T) CCE Vs Saurashtra Cement Ltd.- 2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj.) Affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India- 2013 (292) ELT A-98 (SC) CCE Vs Harish Silk Industries- 2013 (288) ELT 74 (Guj) CCE Vs Titan Industries Ltd.- 2014 (309) ELT 731 (T) CCE Vs Beehive Foundry Engineering Works- 2014 (3010 ELT 516 (T) 3. Shri Tara Praksah, Learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding in the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the issue to be decided in the present case is that whether the appellant s product is classifiable as medicament under CTH 3004 or a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ification of a product contains various drugs and chemicals. In our view the adjudicating authority was suppose to either get the product tested or at least obtain an expert opinion from authorized and recognized independent pharma/chemical authority before deciding the classification. Therefore in our view the observation of the learned Commissioner in the impugned order is based on incomplete/ premature material which needs to be reconsidered. Therefore on merit we are of the view that the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority. 4.2 As regard the appellant s submission on demand being hit by limitation, we find that the issue involved is pure classification of goods and the issue is complex as the rival entries of medicam .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates