1995 (5) TMI 103 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of Flavomycin-40 and Stenorol under Chapter 30; Tribunal rules on penalty imposition and financial hardship

The judgment addressed the classification of products Flavomycin-40 and Stenorol under Chapter 30 as P or P medicaments, finding a contentious issue and ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit Issues: Classification of products under Chapter 30 as P or P medicaments, Time bar aspect for demand raised, Financial hardship plea, Imposition of penalty under Rule 209A, Prima facie case for classification under Chapter 23, Requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, Waiver of penalty for one applicant, Miscellaneous application for clearance at Nil rate of duty.Classification of products under Chapter 30 as P or P medicaments:The judgment dealt with the classification of products, Flavomycin-40 and Stenorol, under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10 as P or P medicaments. The dispute arose from the Collector's order confirming a duty demand against the manufacturers, alleging the products to be medicines chargeable to duty. The applicants argued that the products were animal feed supplements under Chapter sub-heading 2302.00, citing their use in improving feed efficiency for chicks without therapeutic value. The Department contended that the products had prophylactic qualities and were correctly classifiable under Chapter 30 as P or P medicaments. The Tribunal noted the contentious classification issue and deferred detailed consideration to the final hearing.Time bar aspect for demand raised:The judgment addressed the time bar aspect concerning the demand raised for the period September 1988 to July 1993. The applicants argued that the demand was beyond the normal limitation period of six months, as they had declared the products as animal feed supplements under Heading 2302.00. They claimed no suppression or misdeclaration, seeking a waiver of pre-deposit based on financial hardship. The Department contended that the applicants had suppressed material particulars, justifying the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal found that the extended period was not applicable, limiting the demand to six months prior to the show cause notice.Financial hardship plea and Imposition of penalty under Rule 209A:The judgment considered the financial hardship plea raised by the applicants, emphasizing their profit margin. The applicants sought a waiver of penalty, arguing a bona fide belief in the classification of their products as animal feed supplements. The Department imposed penalties under Rule 209A, citing the applicants' failure to disclose essential product information. The Tribunal found no prima facie case for penalty imposition due to the applicants' belief in the correct classification, waiving the penalty for one applicant and directing a deposit for the other.Prima facie case for classification under Chapter 23:The judgment analyzed the prima facie case for classification under Chapter 23, focusing on the nature of the products and their essential characteristics. The Tribunal noted conflicting views in previous cases regarding similar products and their classification as animal feed supplements. Considering the applicants' belief in the correct classification and past practices of other manufacturers, the Tribunal found no suppression or misdeclaration warranting penalty imposition.Requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, Waiver of penalty for one applicant:The judgment directed one applicant to deposit a specified amount within a set period, waiving the requirement of pre-deposit for the balance duty and penalty upon compliance. Failure to comply would result in the vacation of stay and appeal rejection without notice. The Tribunal waived the penalty imposed on the other applicant based on the findings and circumstances of the case.Miscellaneous application for clearance at Nil rate of duty:The judgment rejected the miscellaneous application seeking clearance of products at a Nil rate of duty under Chapter sub-heading 2302.00, based on the prima facie classification of the products under Chapter 30. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the products' characteristics and their alignment with the classification criteria under Chapter 23.