2019 (2) TMI 756

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t manufactured by the appellant i.e., Recombinant Human Erythropoietin (R-EPO) is classifiable under Chapter heading No.3002 as claimed by the appellant/assessee or under Chapter heading No.3003 as claimed by the revenue. The lower authorities entertaining a view that the product is classifiable under Chapter heading No.3003, issued a show cause notice dated 02.02.2006 directing the appellant to show cause as to why the classification of the product EPR be not done under Chapter heading No.3003 and duty be not demanded from them. The said show cause notice also alleged suppression of facts and hence invoked extended period of limitation and demanded duty for the period February, 2001 to February, 2002. Appellant contested the show cause not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e given by the appellant as early as 25.10.2001. Despite such correspondence being on record, the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand without considering the pleas in its correct perspective. He would submit that in the case of M/s Wockhardt Ltd the bench has held that on limitation there is a case for said M/s Wockhardt Ltd, hence the said ratio will apply in this case also. 5. Learned departmental representative submits that on merits, the issue is squarely against the appellant as the classification of the product is correctly done under hormones i.e., Chapter sub-heading No.3003. It is his further submission that on limitation appellant did not give the correct manufacturing process to the departmental authorities and had....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....02. On 15.10.2001, office of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kompally Range again wrote letter informing the appellant that the product merits classification under Chapter Sub-heading No.3003.10 sought clarification from the appellant for which the appellant replied the same on 25.10.2001 giving detailed explanation. Surprisingly, subsequent to the last letter dated 25.10.2001 from the appellant, no correspondence took place between the appellant and the Range Officers. Suddenly, a show cause notice dated 02.02.2006 was issued demanding duty by invoking extended period alleging suppression, mis-statement etc. In our considered view, the detailed correspondences which undertook between the appellant and the departmental authorities on ....