TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 561
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. The Joint Commissioner by his order had confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 1,23,409/- with interest thereon and equal amount of penalty against them. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the said order. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Acid Slurry, Spent Acid, Detergent Powder, Detergent Cake and Hair Oil. Pursuant to the information received from the Asstt. Commissioner, Bhopal about storage of 6,489/- bottles of "Vitamin E enriched DOT Sheetal Ayurvedic Tel" packed in cartons as well as otherwise, investigation was carried out with reference to the manufacture of the products by the appellants and in conclusion thereof show cause notice dated 21-6-2001 came to be issued to the appellants consequent to having f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocate for the appellants placing reliance in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad v. Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 323 (S.C.), Commissioner v. Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra reported in 2008 (227) E.L.T. A-68 (S.C.), and Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Ishan Research Lab (P) Ltd. reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.) submitted that the authorities below have clearly found that the case of the appellants is similar to the case of Himtaj Oil case and considering the Supreme Court's decision in Himtaj Oil case, the product manufactured by the appellant has to be classified under 3003.39 as claimed by the appellants. The Authorities below having totally ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Oil case and there is a clear finding to the effect by the adjudicating authority, it is to be noted that it has been held by the adjudicating authority that "in a similar case while deciding classification of Ayurvedic Oil Himtaj, the Hon'ble CEGAT had held in CCE, v. Himtaj Oils reported in 2000 (125) E.L.T. 765 that though the ingredients used are mentioned in Authoritative text books but the product was not manufactured in accordance with any formula prescribed therein, therefore, the product Himtaj Oil was not classified as Ayurvedic medicaments but as Perfumed Hair Oil. The present case is also of the same type and ratio of the order in Himtaj Oil case can be applied to this case." 8. Plain reading of the above quoted para woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 or 33.05 and it was held that the case was squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad v. Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 323 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Pandit D.P. Sharma reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.) and, therefore, the Himtaj Tel was classifiable under T.I. 30.03. For this reason for which the decision in the case of Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 323 is not applicable to the facts of the case for the same reason. This decision is also of no help to the appellants in the case in hand. 12. In Zandu Pharmaceuticals, the Tribunal had observed that merely because the fact that some in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Dileep Kumar Gupta, Partner of the appellant's firm. He had clearly accepted in this statement that there was neither any daily stock account of receipts and utilisation of the raw materials maintained nor proper records of clearance of the oil was available apart from the fact that the appellants had been maintaining separate set of invoices in relation to the clearances of oil products. 15. Merely because declaration was filed on 3-12-99 which did not disclose the correct facts that would not prohibit the department from invoking the extended period of limitation, once it is revealed in the course of investigation that the facts disclosed in the declaration were not correct and there was a case of clandestine removal of the produc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....brought before it and has come to the final findings in the following words : "This would also go to show that a dispute prevailed in the matter of classification of such products. In the above circumstances, the appellants cannot be held to be guilty of suppression or mis-statement and hence the charge of suppression is not sustainable. We, therefore, hold that the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise is not applicable to these 3 cases, and hence set aside the demand covered by adjudication order No. 5/98 as time barred." We are satisfied with the reasoning given by the Tribunal and affirm the same." 16. Plain reading of the said para would disclose that the observations therein were based on peculiar facts of the case w....