TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Rs. 30,53,183/- and imposed a penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC and also demanded interest under Section 11AB. The Misc. Application was filed by the applicant for considering additional ground of Appeal on the merit of classification of the issue, which was not raised in the Original Appeal memo. 2. The issue involved in the present case is the classification of two products namely Bio-95 and Herbal Pet Wash. The revenue classified Bio-95 under CETH 3402.90 and Pet Wash under CETH 3307.90 as against the appellant's claim under 3402.10 and 3401.11 respectively. The background of the case is that the appellant classified the product Bio-95 under CETH 3402.90 till 30-11-2004. However, with effect from 01-12-2004 they changed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat there is a specific tariff entry for Sulphonated Castor Oil under CETH 3402.10, therefore there is no reason for classifying the same under residual entry i.e. "other" falling under CETH 3402.90. In support, she placed reliance on the judgment of Unitex Dychem India Vs. Collector of C.Ex., New Delhi - 1998 (103) ELT 118 (Tri.). As regard classification of Herbal Pet Wash, she submits that it is an admitted fact that this product is a medicated soap and used for washing of pet animals such as dogs. She also submits that the appellant has obtained a license in respect of this product as an 'Ayurvedic Proprietary Medicine' from the Food & Drug Administration, Pune. Product labels declares the product Pet Wash as "based on Ayurvedic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground of limitation placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Jai Shree Rasayan Udyog Ltd. vs. C.C.E. Rohtak [2015 (316) ELT 338 (Tri. - Del.) (b) Indian Petrochem Corpn. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. Vodadara [2002-(XC2)-GJX-1331-Trib.] (c) Bombay Tubes & Containers vs C.C.E. Bombay [1996 - (XC2)-GJX-1247-Trib.] (d) Space Age Engg. Projects P. Ltd. vs C.C.E. Pune [1995 - (XC2)-GJX-0443-Trib.] (e) Pranav Vikas vs C.C.E. New Delhi [2002-(XC1)-GJX-2902-Trib.] (f) Pahwa Chemicals P. Ltd. vs C.C.E. Delhi [2005-(XC4)-GJX-1733-SC] 4. On the other hand, Shri V.K. Shashtri, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by bot....