9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocare Forte (6) Dot care Super Dot (7) UTPP 5 (8) L Mezole Plus (9) Bio Care/Bio Care Forte (10) Vitamin Premixes (11) AB2D3 Triple Strength (12) Choline 500 (13) Yea-Sacc 1026 (14) Lysocare/Methocare (15) Electrocare plus which were proposed for classification as Medicaments, Vitamins or cattle preparation under Heading 3003.10, 2936 or 2922 or 2923 or 2102 based on pamphlets, literature expert opinions and duty was demanded, by denying the benefits of Notification Nos. 175/86 and 1/93. (b) and reading the HSN Notes under Chapter 23 and considering the following evidence on record - (i) All products are ''premix"products. (ii) Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicine, College of Veterinary Sciences, Patnagar, dated 15-4-1995. (iv) Dr. R. Kadirvel, Prof. Head, Deptt. of Animal Nutrition, Madras Veterinary College, Madras, dated 21-4-1995. (v) M.R. Choudhary, Director, Central Poultry Training Instt., Govt. of India, Hesaraghatta, Bangalore, dated 10-1-1991. (vi) Dr. M.S. Parthasarathy, Dvnl. Manager (Foods), Karnataka State Agro-Corn. Products Ltd., Bangalore. (vii) Dr. G. Devegowda, Professor and Head, Deptt. of Poultry Science, University of Agricultural Science, Hebbal, Bangalore, dated 15-12-1994. (viii) Opinion dated 16-9-1995 of Drugs Controller, Govt. of Karnataka, Drugs Control Deptt., Bangalore. (ix) Affidavits of dealers. (x) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Department has not discharged the onus or burden of proof as required in law which regards to any of the disputed products and the assessee has submitted the affidavits of the dealers of the disputed goods as stated in para 36 supra, he accepted the assessee's submission, that the 9 goods are correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 2302 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 85. Whereas the Department clearly discharged the onus or burden of proof as required in law, with regard to each of the disputed products, as detailed in the show cause notice. The major dispute is whether particular product is medicine or feed supplement/feed additive. The Department relied on the expert opinion given by Dr. B. Jagadish Kumar, Professor, Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner was not correct. We find that the Commissioner has considered the material evidence in the show cause notice vis-a-vis the evidence brought before him by the defence, which is not being challenged. We can find no infirmity in the act of reliance placed by the adjudicator on the evidence produced in defence especially in light of findings, as arrived at in para 44 of the impugned order. (c) The Revenue has not challenged the interpretation of the findings as regards the scope of Heading Entry 2302 of CETA, vis-a-vis in HSN. The appeal also alleges, that these notes, do not apply to some of the goods. If they accept the same for others, the appeal should have been restricted to the specific other goods. (d) We find th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied under Chapter 23 for the subsequent period by Assistant Commissioner's Order No. 108/96, dated 14-6-1996. This order is stated to have become final. (e) As regards the grounds taken in respect of Yea Saac 1026, proposed to be classified under 2102.00 as 'yeast', we find that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide his Order 108/96, dated 14-6-1996, has categorically held this product to be only a repacking activity from imported 25 Kgs. bags into retail packs and the same has been classified by Custom House as Animal feed and will thus be excluded from the Classification List filed as an exigible product. This order of the A.C. is on other similar/same goods, approving them as under 'Animal Feeds'' and no evidence has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
