TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....directed to be listed on 02.09.2025. The appellant did not appear on 02.09.2025. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue submitted his synopsis and compilation. The matter has been adjourned to today, 08.09.2025. The appellant has not appeared today also. 2. The question which arises is how to deal with cases where the appellant does not appear before this Tribunal. The Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the case of BALAJI STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUSTOMS [2014 (310) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.)], held that if the appellant is not present on the day the matter is taken up for hearing, this Tribunal should decide the matter on merits. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: "2. The sole question of law which arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') has the power to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or not. ...... 13. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid case to the facts of the present case, as the two provisions are similar, we are of the considered opinion that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Excise Tariff Heading No. 3004. Pharmaceutical products were one of the specified goods under this notification. 8. Officers of the department received intelligence, that in addition to pharmaceuticals, the appellant was also manufacturing Dietary Foods Supplements, classifiable under chapter heading no. 21069099 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which are not specified goods under exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-CE but the appellant had not paid excise duty. Officers visited the factory premises of the appellant on 17.03.2015 and found that the appellant was manufacturing Dietary Food Supplements/Dietary Supplement under PFA License No. NS-321/2011-12 dated 12.07.2011 & 12612006000220 dated 27.07.2012 respectively but cleared them classifying them under Central Excise Tariff heading [CETH] 30031000/30032000 without paying central excise duty. 9. Finding that Dietary Food Supplements/Dietary supplements were clearly excluded from Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff and that they deserved to be classified under CETH 21069099 and that the goods under this CETH were not specified in Notification No. 49/2003, a show cause notice dated 15.07.2016 [SCN] was issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant may be given an opportunity of being heard. Submissions of the Revenue 14. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue made the following submissions: (i) The appellant was not entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE because its factory was not in the specified area. (ii) The appellant was entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 49/2003-CE but only for pharmaceutical products and not for dietary supplements. (iii) There is no dispute that the goods in question were dietary supplements and that the appellant had obtained a licence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) to manufacture them. (iv) The appellant had mis-classified them as pharmaceutical products under CETH 3003 and claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 49/2003-CE. (v) CETH 3003 reads as under and food supplements do not fall under it by any stretch of imagination: "3003 : Medicaments (excluding goods of heading 3002, 3005 or 3006) consisting of two or more constituents which have been mixed together for therapeutic or prophylactic uses, not put up in measured doses or in forms or packing fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned order is correct and calls for no interference. The appeal may be dismissed. Findings 15. We have considered the submissions in the appeal and the submissions advanced by the learned authorised representative on behalf of Revenue and perused the records. 16. The first question to be decided is about the classification of the dietary supplements manufactured by the appellant. The appellant classified them as pharmaceutical products under CETH 3003. However, Chapter note 1(a) to Chapter 30 of the Central excise Tariff, reads as follows: This Chapter does not cover: (a) Food or beverages (such as diabetic, diabetic or fortified food, food supplements, tonic beverages and mineral waters), other than nutritional preparation for intravenous administration (Section IV) 17. In its appeal, the appellant reproduced part of the above Chapter note 1(a) minus the words 'for intravenous administration' and made out a case that all food supplements which are nutritional preparations were excluded from the purview of Chapter note 1(a). If the complete sentence is read, it would leave no manner of doubt that food supplements other than nutritional preparations....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the dietary supplements or dietary food supplements which it had manufactured were not drugs but were food and hence it had obtained a licence for their manufacture from the FSSAI. It could not have entertained a belief that they were pharmaceutical products. Even in the appeal before us, the appellant claimed that they were not excluded by Chapter note 1(a) of Chapter 30 (Pharmaceutical products) by quoting part of the note and reproducing the complete note. Nothing in the conduct of the appellant from filing the declaration before the department that they were manufacturing 'Pharmaceutical products falling under CETH 30.04' to citing part of the Chapter note 1(a) in the appeal before us, shows any bonafide belief of the appellant. The mens rea or intention to evade can only be inferred from the conduct of the assessee. We find from the facts of the case, that the appellant had the intention to evade and therefore, declared 'Pharmaceutical products falling under CETH 30.04' and did not declare the dietary supplements in the form of tablets, capsules, syrups and drops manufactured by it. Therefore, we find in favour of the Revenue and against the appellant on the question of invok....