TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upheld Niacin Classification, Duty Demand, Rejects Plea for Cum-Duty Price Benefits</h1> <h3>Aarti Drugs Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II</h3> Aarti Drugs Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II - 2015 (324) E.L.T. 594 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Classification of Niacin (Feed Grade) under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985Detailed Analysis:The main issue in this appeal revolves around the classification of the product Niacin (feed grade) manufactured by the appellant. The appellant manufactures bulk products like Niacin falling under Chapter Heading 29.36 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. However, they also produce Niacin (Feed Grade) used in animal feed and classify it under Tariff Item 23099090, clearing it at nil rate of duty. The Commissioner classified Niacin Feed Grade under Tariff Item 29362920, imposing a duty demand of Rs. 65,43,700 and a penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. The appellant argued that the product should be classified under Chapter 23 as a preparation used in animal feeding, citing relevant case law and Board Circulars.The appellant contended that the product in question does not meet the specifications of the Indian Pharmacopoeia and should be classified under Chapter 23 as a kind used in animal feeding, with a nil tariff rate. They also argued that Niacin (Feed Grade) should not be equated with Niacin (Vitamins) due to differences in purity and preparation. Additionally, they claimed entitlement to Cenvat Credit benefits and cum-duty price benefits. The appellant further argued against the invokation of the extended time period for duty demand, citing their proper declaration of the product in their returns.The Ld. AR argued that the product should be classified under Tariff Item 29362920 as it specifically covers Nicotinic acid, which the product contains. They emphasized that the product is not a preparation for animal feed but Niacin itself, supporting their argument with relevant case law. The Tribunal analyzed the manufacturing process, materials used, and labeling of the product to determine its classification. They found that the product is essentially Niacin with a 95% purity, differing from the 99% pure Niacin, and should be classified under Tariff Item 29362920. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's plea for cum-duty price benefits and upheld the duty demand for the normal period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the classification of Niacin (Feed Grade) under Tariff Item 29362920 and the duty demand for the normal period of limitation. They ruled out the applicability of the extended time period, confiscation, fine, and penalty, while ordering the payment of interest corresponding to the upheld duty amount.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
