9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presentative of both the applicant explains that the assessee manufacture medicaments, some of which were cleared for export and other for home consumption. Credit has been denied of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the final product on the ground that the goods were not classifiable as patent and proprietary medicaments under Heading 3003.10; but classifiable under Heading 3003.20 as other medicaments, which were exempted, from duty. The period of clearances is October, 1993 to March, 1998. The notice is dated 29th October, 1998. The contention is that the goods exported, classification list classifying under 3003.10 of which were approved and therefore extended period will not apply. The Supreme Court judgment in CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used in the manufacture of both exempted and dutiable final product and it was up to the applicant to make this clear. 4. There is little doubt, prima facie, applicant claimed classification of some goods differently when exported (as patent or proprietary medicines) and when cleared for home consumption (as medicines other than patent or proprietary). Explanation by representative of the applicants, that there was confusion in the department's mind as to whether the goods were one or the other, does not answer this point. If it was, the classification of the goods would have been either one or the other for both kinds of drugs and not differently for same goods when differently dealt with. The contention that because the goods were exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt that the provisions of Rule 173Q will not apply to the facts in this case of mens rea, as we have noted above the fact that it is not the assessee's ignorance or confusion, but there is, prima facie, evidence of clear knowledge and design on the part of the assessee to classify the same goods under different heading. It also holds good as regards to penalty. The contention that because of sub-rule (4) of Rule 57F proforma credit taken on the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods could be utilised in the manner specified in the rule does not justify the proportion that credit can be taken even if the final product is not liable to duty. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 57F does not have the effect of nullifying the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
