Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd vs Cce, Bhopal on 26 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 26/02/2014. DATE OF DECISION : 26/02/2014. Excise Appeal Nos. 3681-3682 of 2005 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. GWL/604-606/2004 dated 20/09/2004 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Gwalior.] For Approval and signature : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would 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 the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Department Authorities? M/s Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. Appellant Versus CCE, Bhopal Respondent
Appearance None for the appellant.
Shri Govind Dixit, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 50897-50898/2014 Dated : 26/02/2014 Per. Archana Wadhwa :-
Nobody appeared for the appellant, we have accordingly heard the learned DR.
2. On going through the impugned orders passed by the authority below, we find that dispute relates to the correct classification of the product Lal Dant Manjan being manufactured by the appellant. Whereas, the appellants have claimed the classification under heading 3306.00, as Ayurvedic medicine, Revenue has classified the same under heading 3303.30 as dental preparation. Commissioner (Appeals), while rejecting the appeal has relied upon the Honble Supreme Court decision in the appellants own case reported as 1996 (83) E.L.T. 492 (S.C.), wherein the product was held to be known as Ayurvedic Medicinal preparation. He also referred to the Tribunal decision in the same appellants case reported as Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Allahabad 2004 (63) R.L.T. 142 (T), wherein Tribunal by following the Honble Supreme Court decision has held the product to be a non-Ayurvedic medicine.
3. In view of the above, in as much as issues stand decided against the assessee, we reject the present appeals filed by the appellants and upheld the impugned orders.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
2