TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri B.L. Narasimhan & Shri Hrishikesh, Advocates for Appellants Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Additional Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the order of classification whereas the Revenue sought to classify the said goods namely Roop Amruta as cosmetic items under Sub-heading 33049910 and D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the factory of M/s Surya on 28/03/2006 wherein it was found that the M/s Surya clearing impugned goods as ayurvedic medicine classifying under Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act and discharged duty under Section 4 of the Act. The case of Revenue is that the said goods are classifiable under cosmetic and it was classified under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Therefore, the good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants have disputed the classification by Revenue for the sake of arguments. He also submits that entire demand is barred by limitation as for the period August, 2005 to March, 2006, the show cause notice has been issued on 22/07/2010 by invoking the extended period of limitation. The classification of the impugned goods were known to the department as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the factory premises of the appellant on 28/03/2006 and goods were also seized on 28/03/2006 that the show cause notice was only issued on 16/03/2007. Thereafter, the show cause notice is highly barred by limitation as no malafide is attributable to the appellants. In that circumstances, we hold that all the demands are barred by limitation. Consequently, the demand of duty is not sustainable....