9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of the whole product forms basis of payment of duty, rejecting the appellant's contention that they were entitled to reduce the assessable value by 50% as the potency level of active mass of the product in the total dry mass varied by 50%. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. The undisputed process of manufacture of the product is as follows :- "Broth is obtained by a fermentation process using various inputs such as soya bean meal, soya bean oil, glucose, calcium hydroxide, yeast; the fermented broth is subjected to treatment with alkali and acid; the treated broth is filtered on rotary vacuum filter; the Wet Salinomycin Mycelium obtained from the rotary vacuum filter is dried; the filterate is sent to the effluent treatment plant. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ium culture and then powdered and supplied to job-workers for further manufacture of Coxistac which is a pre-mix. The appellants do not dispute that the product is used in the further manufacture of the pre-mix Coxistac. Although, the appellants urged that the goods in dispute are not the products of anti-biotic manufacturing process, this plea is not supported by any evidence. The product is not coccidiostat and carrier as claimed by the appellant but coccidiostat alone (dried along with medium culture) and therefore, not identical to the products covered by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Tetragon Chemie, [2001 (138) E.L.T. 414 (Tri. - LB) = 1999 (30) RLT 366] and Li-Taka Pharmaceuticals [2000 (121) E.L.T. 203]. In the case of Te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apter 23 of the Schedule to the CETA 95. 6. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the product in dispute falls for classification under CET sub-heading 2941.90 as antibiotic. 7. Now we come to valuation of goods. The declared assessable value pertaining to relevant periods submitted vide cost data shows the cost of product on per Kg basis and the said declared value formed the basis for payment of duty on the quantities of finished product cleared. The appellants, however, determined and paid the duty multiplying the assessable value with only the active mass and not the total mass of the finished goods on the ground that the potency level of the active mass of the product in the total dried mass varies around 50% and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, double the quantity of Salinomycin obtained (in Kilograms, not KgA) per batch. In other words, there is no material on record to establish that the quantities of Salinomycin 350 Mycelia shown as produced in batches in Kilograms in Cost Accountant's Cost Certificates were later doubled at the time of clearance. The cost data also clearly mentions the value of the goods as per Kg and not per KgA. Therefore, we agree with the Authorities below that the value taken for quantifying the demand being the one declared by the appellants as per the relevant cost data has been correctly applied for determining the assessable value of the goods. 9. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
