Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Charak Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 19 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(192)ELT861(TRI-MUMBAI)
JUDGMENT Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. The issue involved in all the four stay petitions is identical, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 'Honey' and classified the same under heading 3003.31. However, the revenue entertained a view inasmuch as the goods in question are being sold under the appellants brand name 'Charak', the same would be properly classifiable as Branded Ayurvedic Medicines under Chapter sub-Heading 3003.39. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant for different period in the notices; the issues were adjudicated by the original adjudicating authority by holding the goods as classifiable under Heading 3003.39. During the adjudication proceedings the appellant convassed before the Joint Commissioner that the correct classification of the goods would be under chapter 4 as edible products of animal origin, as held by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. as reported in [1992 (59) ELT 279 (Tribunal)]. However, the said plea was not accepted by the Assistant commissioner, who confirmed the demands and imposed penalties. On appeal against the said decisions, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appellants stand that the product would be correctly classifiable under Chapter 4 in terms of the tribunal's order, but accepted the said claim of the appellant w.e.f. 1.2.2001, when a fresh declaration was filed by them. As regards, the previous period he upheld the view of the original adjudicating authority.
2. The appellants grievance is that the Commissioner (Appeals) having accepted the appellants stand of correct classification under Chapter 4, was not justified in restricting the same from 1.2.2001 onwards. The appellant having claimed the correct classification even before the Assistant Commissioner and the duty of the authorities being to arrive at the correct classification in spite of the wrong claim of the appellant, the classification should have been accepted under Chapter 4 for all times. We agree with the above contention of the Ld. Advocate. The appellate authority having held correct classification under Chapter 4 should have been adopted the same for the entire period instead of dividing the period into two parts. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellant's have a strong prima facie case in their favour and allow the stay petitions unconditionally.
(Dictated in Court)