2024 (7) TMI 685

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or whether the same is classifiable as cosmetics under Chapter Sub-Heading No. 3304 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985? (ii) Whether extended period of limitation is invokable in the case of show cause notice dated 06.03.2013? 2. Shri Anand Nainawati, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the product 'Suncros UVA' Gel and Lotion /Hyclean cream is correctly classify under heading No. 30049099 as 'Medicaments'. Accordingly, concessional rate under Sl. No. 62 of Notification 04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 as amended was available to the appellant. He submits that as per the composition of the product, it is clear that the sam....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(277) ELT 299 (SC) Griffon Laboratories Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE 2003 (156) ELT 787 (T) Affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 2004 (164) ELT A-32 (SC) Dabur India Ltd Vs CCE- 2009 (236) ELT 506 (T) Affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India- 2012 (283) ELT A-112 (SC) VVF Ltd Vs CCE- 2016 (334) ELT 579 (SC) Sujanil Chemo Industries Vs CCE-2005 (181) ELT 206 (SC) CCE Vs Sharma Chemicals Works- 2003 (154) ELT 328 (SC) Muller & Phipps (India) Ltd Vs CCE- 2004 (167) ELT 374 (SC) Meghdoot Gramodyog Sewa Sansthan Vs CCE- 2004 (174) ELT 14 (SC) State of A.P Vs Linde India Ltd.- 2020 (36) GSTL 3 (SC) State of Goa Vs Colfax Laboratories Ltd- 2003 (1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....shtra Cement Ltd.- 2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj.) Affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India- 2013 (292) ELT A-98 (SC) CCE Vs Harish Silk Industries- 2013 (288) ELT 74 (Guj) CCE Vs Titan Industries Ltd.- 2014 (309) ELT 731 (T) CCE Vs Beehive Foundry Engineering Works- 2014 (3010 ELT 516 (T) 3. Shri Tara Praksah, Learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding in the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the issue to be decided in the present case is that whether the appellant's product is classifiable as medicament under CTH 3004 or as cosmetics under CTH 3304 and; whether t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s drugs and chemicals. In our view the adjudicating authority was suppose to either get the product tested or at least obtain an expert opinion from authorized and recognized independent pharma/chemical authority before deciding the classification. Therefore in our view the observation of the learned Commissioner in the impugned order is based on incomplete/ premature material which needs to be reconsidered. Therefore on merit we are of the view that the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority. 4.2 As regard the appellant's submission on demand being hit by limitation, we find that the issue involved is pure classification of goods and the issue is complex as the rival entries of medicament and cosmetic. Various similar p....