Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Pfizer Limited vs C.C.E., Chandigarh on 15 October, 2014
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing/decision:15.10.2014 Central Excise Appeal No.6285 of 2004 Arising out of the order-in-appeal No.298/CE/CHD/2004 dated 31.3.2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh. For Approval and Signature: Honble Mr. Justice G.Raghuram, President Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Technical Member 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication I n 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? Pfizer Limited .. Appellant Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh .. Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri Somnath Shukla, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri Ranjan Khanna, A.R. for the respondent Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Technical Member Final Order No. 53970/2014 Per Justice G.Raghuram:
Heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant/assessee and the Ld. A.R. for the respondent/Revenue.
2. The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order dated 31.3.2004 passed by the lower appellate Authority the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh. The impugned order rejected assessees appeal against the adjudication order dated 1.4.2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh whereby the petitioners product Salinomycin 350 Mycelia was classified as a product falling under Chapter Heading 2941.90 of CETA, 1985. Consequently Excise Duty demand of Rs.79,53,457/- along with interest and penalty of Rs.1 lakh, as proposed in the show cause notice, was confirmed.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/assessee would strenuously contend that the impugned order and the concurrent findings of the authorities below, classifying the product under 2941.90, is contrary to the ratio of the decision in Li-Taka Pharmaceuticals 2000 (121) ELT 203 and of the Larger Bench decisonof the Tribunal in Tetragon Chemiem (P) Ltd. vs. Collector 2001 (138) ELT 414 (Tri-LB) (both of which were confirmed by the Supreme Court dismissing Revenue appeals thereagainst).
4. We however notice that a Ld. Division Bench of this Tribunal in Pfizer Limited vs. C.C..E., Chandigarh 2004 (172) ELT 420 (Tri-Mumbai) had considered the same product, in an appeal preferred by the same appellant/assesee as herein and concluded that the product in issue is to be classified under Chapter Heading 2941.90.This decision was rendered after considering the earlier decisions of this Tribunal in Li-Taka Pharmaceuticals. Against this decision, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No.D21894 of 2004 which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18.3.2005 after condoning the delay, reported in 2005 (186) ELT A 117 (SC).
5. In the circumstances, as the issue whether the product in question requires to be classified under 2941.90 stands concluded by the earlier judgment of this Tribunal inter-partes and stands confirmed by the Supreme Court dismissing the Civil Appeal, we see no justification for revisiting the issue of classification.
6. On the above analysis, the appeal is without merits and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.
(Justice G. Raghuram) President (R.K. Singh) Technical Member scd/ 1