2018 (3) TMI 399

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the respondents have claimed exemption notification no.4/2006 dated 01.03.2006 vide Sr. No.47 in respect of their final product namely Natural Micronised Progesterone under the name "Sugest". The department's case is that as per Sr. No.47 of 4/2006 and list 3 of Sr. No.58 the product covered under exemption is Natural Micronised Progesteron....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant is not made out of Natural Micronised Progesterone only but 15 more ingredients were added. Therefore the product manufactured by the appellant is not the same which is appearing at Sr. No.58 of list 3 of notification 21/2002-Cus. Therefore not eligible for exemption notification 4/2006-CE. 3. Ms. Mansi Patil, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents support the impugned order. 4. O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... notification 21/2002-Cus. Therefore it is eligible for exemption notification no.4/2006-CE. From the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) we have observed that after following various judicial pronouncements, given following findings. "From the above, it can be seen that before granting exemption to any product or item, there is a purpose and the purpose is decided on the basis of policy of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty Commissioner, central excise, Ratnagiri has proceeded on wrong presumption i.e. name "Sugest" has not been found mentioned and the product 'Micronised Progesterone' is a blended one. He has also failed to notice the order issued by the officer of his own Commissionerate in the appellant's own case. He has not only proceeded on wrong presumption but also imposed equal penalty without giving any ....