TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (7) TMI 397
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....991, decided that the impugned product is not an excisable goods being unstable non-marketable, not known in the commercial world; that the department had not discharged the burden regarding the marketability of the product. He relied upon the judgments in the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1989 (40) E.L.T. 280 (S.C.) and C.C.E. v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.). However, Collector did not accept the contention of the assessee that their manufacturing operations were within the knowledge of the Department and that the assessee had suppressed the facts regarding independent existence of the impugned product. 3. Shri Sumit K. Das, learned DR, submitted that as per the test report of the Chemical Exami....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduction of the impugned product in their log sheets; the product was stored till it was put to captive use; that Shri Satish Champaklal Manakiwala, Deputy Chief Executive in Research and Development Department of the Respondent, had deposed in his statement dated 10-9-1987 that the figures of production and consumption of D2 Aminobutanol Tartrate are maintained in log sheet at the plant by actual weighment; that the impugned product is kept in plastic container for the purpose of ascertaining its weight. 4. Ms. Enakshi Kulshrestha, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents M/s. Cadila Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., submitted that the impugned product, which comes into existence during the course of manufacture of their final product, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Respondents have neither suppressed any fact nor made any mis-statement and accordingly larger period of time limit is not invokable. Reliance was placed on the following two judgments :- (i) C.C.E. v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) (ii) Padmini Products v. C.C.E., 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. According to Note 1(a) to Chapter 29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, the Chapter applies only to separate chemically defined Organic compounds, whether or not containing impurities. We observe that the Respondents in the cross-objection filed by them have mentioned that "it is not in dispute, and in fact, not a subject matter for co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is in powder form. These all facts have come out of the statement dated 10-9-1987 of Shri Satish Champaklal Manakiwala, Dy. Chief Executive in Research and Development Department. Shri Manakiwala has described the manufacturing process according to which raw material D2 Aminobutanol is reacted in a reactor with Tartaric Acid in the presence of Methanol; that this reaction results in the formation of D2 Aminobutanol Tartrate and L2 Aminobutanol Tartrate; that D2 Aminobutanol Tartrate in powder form is separated by way of filteration whereas L2 Aminobutanol Tartrate is allowed to remain in Methanol. No evidence has been adduced by the Respondents to show that the impugned product is in an unstable condition and it does not have shelf life. ....