Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Thane I vs Nicholas Piramal India Ltd on 8 July, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. II Appeal No. E/790 & 791/03 (Arising out Order-in- Appeal No. PKA/483 to 484/Th-I & II/02 dated 31.12.02 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Thane I) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr.K.K.Agarwal, 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 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 the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane I Appellant Vs. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Respondent Appearance:
Shri S.G. Dewalwar, SDR for the appellant Shri S.S. Gupta, CA for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr.K.K.Agarwal, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 8.7.2008 Date of decision : 8.7.2008 O R D E R No:..
Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) These two appeals are filed by the revenue against Order-in- Appeal No. PKA/483 to 484/Th-I & II/02 dated 31.12.02.
2. Considered the submissions made by both sides. The revenue is in appeal against the order dated 31.12.02 against the classification of the products manufactured by the respondent. It is the submission that the products merit classification under chapter heading 2936 of CETA 1985 while Commissioner (Appeals) has classified the same under Chapter 23.02 of CETA 1985. On a perusal of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon test report of the sample drawn from the respondents factory and further retested by the Chief Chemist (Director, Revenue Laboratory, New Delhi) which clearly indicates that the products merit classification under CH 2302 of CETA, 1985. We also find that an identical issue is decided by the Apex Court in series of judgments i.e. CCE Bangalore vs. Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd. 2001 (132) ELT 525, Sun Export Corporation 1997 (93) ELT 631, CCE vs. Abhi Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. 2005 (181) ELT 351 (SC). It is also seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon one of these decisions, to come to the conclusion that the product manufactured by the respondents would merit classification under 2302 of CETA 1985.
3. We find that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the revenue are rejected.
(Dictated in Court) K.K.Agarwal M.V. Ravindran Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) sr