2003 (10) TMI 456

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laimed by them or under Heading 29.36 of the Tariff as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order and whether the extended period of limitation is invocable for the purpose of demanding the Central Excise duty. 2. Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture various medicaments; that one of the medicaments manufactured by them is Aneudox-12 which is a fixed dose combination of Vitamin B-1, Vitamin B-6 and Vitamin B-12 and sold in injection as well as tablet form; that in their classification declaration filed by them with the Central Excise authorities, they had declared the impugned product classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10 of the Tariff; that the declaration had been a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny medicine under Central Excise Act; that the impugned product is used for preventing and also for remedying diseases, infection and disorders in human beings; that impugned product is known in the trade as "peripheral neuropathy due to multi factorial etiology"; that etiology means any factor causing disease, neuropathy means any disease effecting neurons, that is, a nerve cell including the cell body.; that Aneudox-12 is used for treating factors which cause diseases concerning a nerve cell. He, finally, submitted that both the lower authorities have not dealt with the fact that the demand is time barred and the extended period of limitation is not invocable as the appellants had declared all their activities to the Department and there ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....product. He, further, mentioned that the Hon'ble High Court observed that the particular fixed dose combination of Vitamin B-1, Vitamin B-6 and Vitamin B-12 lack therapeutic value as no evidence was found to be available in the deliberations carried out by the Core Group, Drug Technical Advisory Board and Central Government. Learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that these facts were not disclosed by the Appellants and as such the larger period of limitation is invocable. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, 2001 (134) E.L.T. 269 wherein the Tribunal has held that theory of universal knowledge cannot be attributed to the Department. In reply the learned Advocate, mentioned that ....