Separate penalty on a proprietor and concern is duplicative; camphor with stabilisers remains classifiable under Chapter 29.

Separate penalty on a proprietary concern and its proprietor for the same contravention is duplication and is not sustainable; the proprietor's penalty was set aside. Camphor in powder, tablet, slab and pellet form remained classifiable under Chapter 29 because the addition of hexamine and stearic acid as stabilisers did not change its essential character as a separate chemically defined compound; the alternative classification claim was rejected. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on the unresolved questions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether separate penalty could be sustained on the proprietary concern and its proprietor for the same contravention. (ii) Whether camphor in powder, tablet, slab and pellet form remained classifiable under Chapter 29 as a separate chemically defined compound despite the addition of stabilising ingredients.

Issue (i): Whether separate penalty could be sustained on the proprietary concern and its proprietor for the same contravention.

Analysis: The penalty was imposed both on the firm and on the proprietor for the same set of clearances and conduct. Where the concern itself is a proprietary concern of the same individual, a distinct penalty on the proprietor in addition to the concern results in duplication for the same default.

Conclusion: Separate penalty on the proprietor was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether camphor in powder, tablet, slab and pellet form remained classifiable under Chapter 29 as a separate chemically defined compound despite the addition of stabilising ingredients.

Analysis: Camphor had already been treated as a separately defined chemical compound. The addition of hexamine and stearic acid was for preservation and transport and did not alter its essential character. A chemically defined compound does not cease to fall within Chapter 29 merely because stabilisers are added for preservation or handling.

Conclusion: The goods continued to be classifiable under Chapter 29 and the assessee's alternative classification was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on the unresolved questions, while the challenge succeeded only to the extent of deletion of the separate penalty and rejection of the alternative classification claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A separate penalty cannot be duplicated on a proprietary concern and its proprietor for the same default, and a separate chemically defined compound remains within Chapter 29 notwithstanding the addition of stabilisers for preservation or transport.

---