2002 (7) TMI 160 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods containing alcohol under excise laws: 'Emami Talcum Powder' case

EMAMI LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-I

EMAMI LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-I - 2002 (148) E.L.T. 1238 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:1. Classification of goods under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 versus the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. Dispute over the classification of 'Emami Talcum Powder' containing Ethyl Alcohol.3. Adherence to statutory procedures and maintenance of records under the 1955 Act.4. Application of test results of samples drawn during a specific period to determine duty liability.5. Justification for the imposition of penalty and the issue of limitation.Issue 1: Classification of goods under different ActsThe judgment addresses the issue of whether goods containing alcohol fall under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 or the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants argued that their products, including 'Emami Talcum Powder,' were covered by the 1955 Act due to the presence of alcohol, and they had fulfilled their duty liability under this Act. The adjudicating authority, however, confirmed duty demand against the appellants under the Central Excise Act, leading to a penalty imposition.Issue 2: Dispute over product classificationThe dispute centered around 'Emami Talcum Powder' manufactured by the appellants, which contained Ethyl Alcohol. The demand for duty was based on samples that tested negative for alcohol presence during a specific period. The appellants contended that their products fell under the 1955 Act due to alcohol content, supported by their meticulous record-keeping and adherence to statutory procedures for alcohol usage in manufacturing.Issue 3: Statutory procedures and record-keepingThe appellants maintained detailed records under the 1955 Act, including annual permits for alcohol procurement, gate passes, registers for alcohol usage in production, and monthly returns. The procedures ensured proper control over alcohol supply and usage, as evidenced by statutory records and documents. This meticulous record-keeping demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the 1955 Act regarding alcohol usage in manufacturing processes.Issue 4: Application of test results for duty determinationThe judgment scrutinized the application of test results from samples drawn during a specific period to determine duty liability for 'Emami Talcum Powder.' The absence of samples drawn during the relevant period raised questions about applying test results from a different timeframe. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of considering statutory records and rebutting evidence when relying solely on sample test results to establish non-usage of alcohol in manufacturing processes.Issue 5: Penalty imposition and limitationThe appellants challenged the imposition of penalty and argued that the demand notice issued was barred by limitation. They contended that there was no suppression of facts, as they had paid duty under the 1955 Act, even though the Revenue department claimed duty under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal agreed that the demand was indeed barred by limitation, considering the absence of evidence to support non-usage of alcohol and the appellants' compliance with statutory requirements.In conclusion, the judgment allowed the appeal, setting aside the duty demand and penalty imposition, emphasizing the importance of considering statutory records, maintaining compliance with relevant Acts, and ensuring evidence-based duty determinations without suppression of facts.