Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs M/S Indchemie Health Specialities ... on 6 June, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT AHMEDABAD
<====>
Appeal No.E/353/2012 (Application No.E/S/539/2012)
Arising out of: OIA No.CS/196-197/DMN/SDMN/2011-12, dt.3.2.12
Passed by: Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Vapi
For approval and signature:
Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Honble Member (Judicial)
Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Honble Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No
Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen
the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Appellant:
M/s Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt.Ltd.
Respondent:
CCE Daman Represented by:
Shri M.S. Mohankrishnan, Consultant: for Assessee. Shri S.K. Mall, A.R.: for the Revenue.
CORAM:
MR.M.V. RAVINDRAN, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:06.06.12 ORDER No. /WZB/AHD/2012, dt.06.06.12 Per: M.V. Ravindran:
This Stay Petition is filed for waiver of pre-deposit of balance amount of penalty imposed by adjudicating authority and upheld by first appellate authority.
2. After hearing both sides for some time on Stay Petition, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed off at this juncture as the issue lies in narrow compass. Accordingly, we allow the Stay Petition filed by the assessee and take up the appeal itself for disposal.
3. We find that the issue involved in this case is regarding mis-classification of the final product i.e. Jelly Confectionary. The appellant was classifying the said product under Chapter Heading No.1704 and subsequently they changed the classification as falling under Chapter 30 as an Ayurvedic medicine. The Show Cause Notice was issued which was adjudicated and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of differential duty by not agreeing with the application of the appellant as product falling under Chapter 30 and also demanding interest and imposed equal amount of penalty. On an appeal filed before first appellate authority, the first appellate authority upheld the said classification and sustained the order of demand of duty along with the interest and also imposed penalty.
4. Ld.Authorised representative on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant has already deposited the entire amount of duty liability, interest thereof and also deposited 25% of the amount of duty towards penalty. He prays for the leniency and submit that the amount deposited by them as penalty be considered as enough and close the case.
5. After considering the submissions by the ld.SDR, we find that the issue involved in this case is of classification of the product from Chapter 17 to Chapter 30. Both the lower authorities have held that the said classification of the product is under Chapter 17 only and correctly demanded the duty and interest thereof. We do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue on this point and accordingly we uphold the classification confirmed by the lower authorities and uphold the demand of penalty and interest, which stand deposited during the proceedings.
6. As regards the penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, in our view, the penalty of 25% of the amount of duty liability confirmed by the lower authorities is enough to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we allow the appeal as regards setting aside the balance amount of penalty imposed by adjudicating authority and upheld by first appellate authority.
7. The appeal is disposed off as indicated hereinabove.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
(B.S.V. Murthy) (M.V. Ravindran)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
cbb
3