https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361951 Recombinant erythropoietin was examined for classification under the Central Excise Tariff, with the dispute turning on whether it fell within the tariff notion of a hormone or a blood fraction. The record showed a biotechnologically cloned product expressed outside the human body, not a constituent fraction of human blood, and the evidence was insufficient to establish hormone classification in tariff terms. The classification adopted below was therefore unsustainable. On limitation, the product's novel and medically complex nature, together with bona fide confusion in the field and no proof of deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty, meant the extended period could not be invoked. The demand, interest and penalties were set aside. en-us Thu, 31 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Mar 2020 12:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361951 Recombinant erythropoietin was examined for classification under the Central Excise Tariff, with the dispute turning on whether it fell within the tariff notion of a hormone or a blood fraction. The record showed a biotechnologically cloned product expressed outside the human body, not a constituent fraction of human blood, and the evidence was insufficient to establish hormone classification in tariff terms. The classification adopted below was therefore unsustainable. On limitation, the product's novel and medically complex nature, together with bona fide confusion in the field and no proof of deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty, meant the extended period could not be invoked. The demand, interest and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 31 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361951