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

...., 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 same is manufactured out of various USP/IP drugs and other che....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ffirmed 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 (158) ELT 18 (SC) Commissioner Vs Time Pharma- 1999 (107) ELT A117 (SC) CCE Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd.- 2015 (323) ELT 209 (SC) HPL Chemicals Ltd Vs CCE- 2006 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earned 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 the demand for the extended period is hit by limitation or otherwise. 4.1 As regard the merit of the case we find that appellant have produced ample evidences such as the ingredients used in the manufacture of the product namely UVA Lotion/Gel/Hyclean Cream, the package of the product and label states that product is to be sold by retail on the prescri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ete/ 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 products have been the subject matter in various litigation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Tribunal. Therefore, there is absolutely no intention of the appellant to evade the payment of duty. Having said so we find that the objection was raised during EA-2000 Audit of the appellant's record, the appellant have been filing the ER1 return regularly wher....