9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icaments falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants have two other factories situated at Dehradun and New Delhi. In these factories, the raw materials which are various parts of the herbs like barks, flowers, fruits roots leaves etc., are converted into granules, extracts and oils which are in a semi-finished stage. The factories at Dehradun and Delhi are also issued with drug licences by the concerned authorities. These drugs as per the licence would be manufactured up to the extract or granule stage only by the factories and would be further formulated into tablets syrups, ointments and creams at the manufacturing unit of the appellant located at Bangalore. The Central Excise Authorities directed the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (S.C.) (b) Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. CCE - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.) (c) Sharp Batteries Allied Industries P. Ltd. v. CCE - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 611 (d) CCE, Meerut-II v. Beltek Canadian Water Ltd. - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 657 (e) Comteck Laboratories v. CCE, Mumbai - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 966 (f) Chimique Industries v. CCE, Bangalore [Final Order Nos. 129-130/2005, dated 19-1-2005 of CESTAT Bangalore Bench]. (ii) The classification under Chapter 30 is incorrect as the goods can be classified under this chapter only if they have already been compounded for therapeutic or prophylactic use at the point of clearance. In other words even as per the Board Circular dated 16-9-97, mixed vegetable extr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposed to be taxed. The following case laws were relied on. (a) Cadila Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 262 (S.C.) (b) Union of India v. Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd. - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 274 (S.C.) (c) Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 743 (Tri.). (v) The department was in the knowledge that the appellants were manufacturing products in Dehradun and New Delhi and that further process was undertaken in their factory at Bangalore. Declaration was also filed by the appellants as early as 14-8-97. Thus, there is no suppression on the part of the appellants and the extended period cannot be invoked. (vi) The entire duty if payable at Delhi would get subsumed as credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to preservative process. Therefore, such vegetable extracts unless subjected to preservative process are not liable to be considered as goods attracting excise duty. In view of the fact that there is specific prohibition to sell these goods to other buyers these goods cannot be compared with the products manufactured by others for sale. We have to consider the products at Delhi Unit only as intermediary goods. Therefore we hold that the impugned goods are not excisable. We also do not find any justification for invoking longer period. In view of the above finding, we allow the appeal with consequential relief if any. (Operative portion of the Order already pronounced in open Court on conclusion of the hearing) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
