Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Prem Heena Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & ... on 3 January, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH- COURT NO. I
Excise Appeal No. 50488 of 2021
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. JOD-EXCUS-000-COM-0026-20-21 dated
30.12.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and
Central Excise, Jodhpur.)
Prem Henna Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Khasra No. 270, Kalab Kala Road,
Dholi Magri Choraya Kalakot,
Raipur-Distt Pali (Rajasthan)
Versus
Commissioner of Central GST & Central ...Respondent
Excise, Jodhpur
G-105, Road No. 5, New Industrial Area,
Jodhpur-03 (Rajasthan)
APPEARANCE:
Shri Rupesh Kumar, Senior Advocate with Shri Jitin Singhal, Advocate for
the Appellant
Shri Bhagwat Dayal, Authorized Representative for the Department
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing: 17.12.2024
Date of Decision: 03.01.2025
FINAL ORDER NO. 50011/2025
JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA:
Prem Henna Pvt. Ltd 1 has sought the quashing of the order
dated 30.12.2020 passed by the Commissioner for recovery of central
excise duty from the appellant under section 11A(5) read with section
11A(10) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 2 with interest under section
11AA of the Central Excise Act. The order also imposes penalty upon
the appellant under section 11AC (1)(c) of the Central Excise Act.
1. the appellant
2. the Central Excise Act
2
E/50488/2021
2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of
mehandi paste and mehandi powder. The dispute in the present
appeal relates to availment of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated
17.03.2012 3, as subsequently amended by Notification No. 12/2013-
CE dated 01.03.2013, by the appellant on the manufacture of
mehandi paste. The said Exemption Notification exempts the
excisable goods of the description specified in Column (3) of the
Table from so much of the duty of excise specified thereon under the
First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act, as is in excess of the amount
calculated by the rate specified in the corresponding entry in Column
(4) of the said Table.
3. The relevant portion of the Exemption Notification dated
17.03.2012 is reproduced below:
TABLE
Sl. Chapter or heading Description of Rate Condition
No. or sub-heading or excisable goods No.
tariff item of the
First Schedule
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
xx xx xx xx xx
134 33 Henna powder, not 6% -
mixed with any
other ingredient
4. The Central Government made an amendment in the
Notification dated 17.03.2012 and the relevant portion of the
amended Exemption Notification dated 1.03.2013 is reproduced
below:
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1)
of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of
1944), the Central Government, being satisfied that it
is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby
3. the Exemption Notification
3
E/50488/2021
makes the following further amendments in the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry
of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 12/2012-
Central Excise, dated the 17th March, 2012, published in
the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3,
Sub-section (i) vide G.S.R. 163(E), dated the 17th
March, 2012, namely:-
In the said notification,-
(a) xxxxxxxxxx
(b) xxxxxxxxxx
(i) to (v) xxxxxxx
(vi) for serial number 134 and the entries
relating thereto, the following serial number and the
entries shall be substituted, namely:-
"134 33 Henna powder or paste, Nil -
not mixed with any other
ingredient
5. According to the department, the appellant would not be
entitled to claim exemption on the manufacture of mehandi paste,
whereas according to the appellant it would be entitled to claim the
benefit of the Exemption Notification dated 17.03.2012, as amended
on 01.03.2013, on the manufacture of mehandi paste.
6. The Central Board of Excise and Customs, through a letter
dated 10.07.2014, clarified that the aforesaid exemption would be
available to henna powder mixed with a liquid, so far that liquid is a
medium to change the form of henna powder into paste, but excludes
products like henna dye and such other products which are
cosmetics.
7. A show cause notice dated 02.08.2019 was issued to the
appellant for the period from 01.08.2014 to 30.06.2017 mentioning
therein that under the amended Exemption Notification dated
4
E/50488/2021
01.03.2013 henna powder cannot be mixed with any other ingredient
and should contain pure henna. The show cause notice states that to
ascertain the presence of other ingredients in the henna paste
manufactured by the appellant, the Superintendent sent samples
drawn on 21.05.2014 to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory,
New Delhi, which submitted a test report dated 27.08.2014. The
Superintendent also drew sample on 25.10.2015 and sent it to the
Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi which submitted a
test report dated 22.01.2016. Both the test reports were enclosed as
relied upon document no. 6 to the show cause notice. The show
cause notice drew a conclusion from the aforesaid two reports that
there were some extraneous dyes/material other than henna
powder/leaves present in the samples and thus henna paste
manufactured and cleared by the appellant did not satisfy the
description given for claiming exemption under the Exemption
Notification. The show cause notice also alleges that the appellant is
mixing other ingredients like Benzyl Alcohol, Terpineol, Clove Oil,
Eucalypts Oil in mehandi powder to manufacture mehandi paste. The
appellant was, therefore, required to show cause as to why central
excise duty should not be demanded and recovered from the
appellant for the period August 2014 to June 2017 with interest and
penalty.
8. The appellant submitted a reply dated 23.012.2019 to the show
cause notice. The appellant pointed out that the Tribunal, by an order
dated 19.12.2018 in Prem Henna Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. & S.T.-
5
E/50488/2021
Jaipur-I 4, had decided the issue in favour of the appellant and that
reliance placed by the department on the two test reports dated
27.08.2014 and 22.01.2016 was misplaced. The appellant also
pointed out that the test report dated 27.08.2014 was relied upon in
another show cause notice dated 26.03.2015 that was earlier issued
to the appellant, which show cause notice was adjudicated upon on
03.05.2016. This order was challenged by the appellant before the
Tribunal which decided the appeal on 13.03.2018 in Prem Henna
Pvt. Ltd., Prem Mehandi Centre, Meenakshi Heena Products,
Parmanand & Company Pushp Enterprises vs. C.C., Jodhpur 5
holding that the methodology adopted by the Central Revenue
Control Laboratory, New Delhi was not correct. The appellant also
pointed out that no reliance could be placed on the test report dated
27.08.2014, which pertains to the earlier period and not for the
period for which the show cause notice was issued, as was held by
the Tribunal in the order dated 19.12.2018 in Prem Henna. In the
context of the test report dated 22.01.2016, the appellant pointed
out that the test report does not mention or conclude that extraneous
dyes/material other than henna powder/leaves were present in the
sample. The appellant also explained in detail as to why it would be
entitled to claim the benefit of the Exemption Notification and in this
connection the appellant also placed reliance on the order dated
13.03.2018 passed by the Tribunal in CCE, Jaipur vs. M/s.
Meenakshi Heena Powder 6. The appellant also pointed out that in
4. 2019 (3) TMI 847 - CESTAT New Delhi
5. 2018 (362) E.L.T. 659 (Tri.-Del.)
6. 2018 (4) TMI 821 - CESTAT New Delhi
6
E/50488/2021
respect of the sister concern of the appellant, the Tribunal had
decided the issue in the order dated 19.12.2018 in M/s. Prem
Mehandi Centre vs. CCE, Jaipur 7 by granting the benefit of the
Exemption Notification. The appellant also pointed out that neither
the extended period of the limitation could have been invoked in the
facts and circumstances of the case nor penalty could have imposed
or interest charged from the appellant.
9. The Commissioner, however, did not accept the contentions
raised in the reply submitted by the appellant and by order dated
30.12.2020 confirmed the demand of duty with interest and penalty.
10. In respect of the two test reports dated 27.08.2014 and
21.02.2016 the Commissioner observed as follows:
"13. xxxxxxxxxx
Both the above reports clearly indicate that there
was some extraneous dyes/material other then Henna
Powder/leaves present in the sample of Heena Paste."
11. In regard to the reliance placed by the appellant on earlier
decisions of the Tribunal, the Commissioner observed:
"14.5 xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In the instant case, CESTAT Final Order No.
53529/ 2018 dated 19.12.2018 in the case of M/s
Prem Mehandi Centre Vs CCE, Jaipur and Final Order
No. 53561/2018 dated 19.12.2018 in their own
case have been accepted by Department on
ground of monetary limit which. Hence, in terms
of the provisions of Section 35R of the Central
Excise Act, 1944, such non filing of appeal did not
mean that the Department had acquiesced in the
decision on the disputed issue. Accordingly, final
order passed by Hon'ble Tribunal did
7. Excise Appeal No. 53480 of 2018 decided on 19.12.2018
7
E/50488/2021
not have binding effect in so far as on the instant
case involving similar issue.
14.6. The matter of precedent value of such
orders of Hon'ble Tribunal or Hon'ble High Court and
binding effect thereof, where the Department has either
not filed an appeal to the higher appellate forum due to
low tax effect or has withdrawn the appeal already filed
due to revision in the monetary limits, has been
clarified by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes
and Customs vide Instruction F.No.390/Misc./163/
2010-JC, dated 20.10.2010. xxxxxxxxx.
In view of these instructions, it is evident that in
cases where the Department decides not to
pursue the matter further before the higher
appellate forums due to low tax effect, the
decisions/ orders/ judgments passed by Hon'ble
Tribunal or High Court, as the case may be, shall
not have any precedent value and the Department
is at liberty to pursue the future cases before the
higher appellate fora on merits. In the instant
cases mentioned in para 14.2 & 14.3, the
Department has not accepted the orders passed
by Hon'ble Tribunal on merits but on monetary
limit."
(emphasis supplied)
12. In regard to the issue as to whether the appellant can claim the
benefit of the Exemption Notification, the Commissioner observed:
"There is no dispute that noticee was using henna
powder, water and oils to manufacture the Henna
paste. Facts of the case prove that there is
addition of oils in henna paste (in addition to dyes
as per test report, which can be ignored for the
time being). Change of Henna powder into henna
paste by addition of oils conclusively proves that
henna paste manufacture and cleared by the
noticee was not pure henna with water as a
medium to change form, but was also mixed with
other ingredients viz. oils. I find that there is
8
E/50488/2021
exemption to pure henna paste under the CETA,
1985 during the impugned period under
Notification No. 12/2013-CE dated 01.03.2013.
Henna paste that is made by mixing water and oils
with Henna powder cannot be equated to the pure
Henna powder, not mixed with other ingredient or
Henna powder mixed with water as a medium to
change its form from powder to paste. I find that the
henna paste can be made by continuously stirring
and mixing water with Henna Powder. The oils
mixed with henna powder & water constitutes
other ingredients in the henna paste. The noticee's
plea that paste cannot be made without mixing oils to
henna powder is not legally tenable and recognise oils
as a liquid medium to change form of henna powder to
henna paste because oils in henna paste are used as
preservatives and/or used to enhance quality of the
product. Oils make henna paste that stained quickly,
darkened rapidly with glossy finish and make product
ready to use with added values. Thus, I find that
water is the only liquid can be used as liquid to
change form of henna powder to henna paste.
Moreover, burden to prove that all the conditions
of notification have been fulfilled, lies on the
noticee and not on the Department. In view of the
concrete and conclusive CRCL report dated 27.08.2014
exhibiting that extra spot on the Chromatogram have
been found which indicates extraneous dyes are
present in the sample. I hold that the Henna paste
manufactured by the noticee during the impugned
period is mixed with other ingredients and is not
genuine (pure) henna. Thus, the benefit of effective
rate of duty on Henna paste under the
Notification No. 12/2013-CE dated 01.03.2013 (S.
No. 134) is not available to the noticee. I reject the
request for retest of the sample in view of the concrete
and conclusive test results under the CRCL Test Report
vide No.35\ CRCL\2014-CL-50(CE)/29.05.2014 Dated
27.08.2014 and No. 35-CUSICRCL\2015-CL-459-C.Ex/
04.11.2015 dated 22.01.2016. Anyway the noticee has
not accepted the order of CESTAT for retest of their
9
E/50488/2021
samples and gone appeal before Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
18.7. Thus, I find that the noticee has
manufactured Henna paste mixed with other
ingredients during the impugned period and was
therefore not eligible to avail benefit
of Notification No. 12/2013-CE dated 01.03.2013
(S.No. 134)."
(emphasis supplied)
13. It is this order dated 30.12.2020 passed by the Commissioner
that has been assailed in this appeal.
14. Shri Rupesh Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant
assisted by Shri Jitin Singhal made the following submissions:
(i) The appellant is clearly entitled to avail the benefit
of the Exemption Notification as henna powder is
not mixed by the appellant with any other
ingredient in the manufacture of henna paste;
(ii) Neither the test report dated 27.08.2014 nor the
test report dated 22.01.2016 submitted by the
Central Revenue Control Laboratory, can be made
the basis to deny the benefit of the Exemption
Notification to the appellant;
(iii) The benefit of the Exemption Notification cannot
be denied to the appellant merely because it is
alleged that the appellant is using oil in henna
powder to make henna paste. In this connection,
reliance has been placed on certain decisions of
the Tribunal, to which reference shall be made at
the appropriate stage;
10
E/50488/2021
(iv) The Commissioner clearly committed an error in
holding that if the department does not challenge
an order passed by the adjudicating authority only
because of monetary limit, then the said order
would not have any precedence value;
(v) The extended period of limitation could not have
been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the
case; and
(vi) Neither penalty could have been imposed upon the
appellant nor interest could have been demanded
from the appellant.
15. Shri Bhagwat Dayal, learned authorized representative
appearing for the department, however, supported the impugned
order and made the following submissions:
(i) The order passed by the Commissioner has
considered each and every aspect of the matter
and correctly concluded that the appellant would
not be entitled to avail the benefit of the
Exemption Notification;
(ii) The extended period of limitation was correctly
invoked; and
(iii) The Commissioner was justified in imposing
penalty upon the appellant and demand of interest
is also justified.
16. The submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the
appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the
department have been considered.
11
E/50488/2021
17. The period of dispute in the present case is from 01.08.2014
upto 30.06.2017. The Exemption Notification, dated 17.03.2012,
against serial no. 134, describes the excisable goods as "henna
powder, not mixed with any other ingredient". This was subjected to
six percent excise duty. The amendment made on 17.03.2012
substituted serial no. 134 as "henna powder or paste, not mixed with
any other ingredient". It was subjected to Nil rate of duty. It is the
said amendment that would be applicable to the facts of the present
case.
18. The Commissioner has found that the appellant was using
henna powder, water and oils to manufacture henna paste and
addition of oils to henna powder to make henna paste would deprive
the appellant from taking the benefit of the Exemption Notification.
According to the Commissioner, the benefit of the Exemption
Notification would accrue to the appellant only if water was added to
henna powder for making henna paste. Using oils, in the opinion of
the Commissioner, would amount to adding "any other ingredient" for
making henna powder into henna paste. To arrive at such a
conclusion the Commissioner relied upon the two test reports dated
27.08.2014 and 22.01.2016 submitted by the Central Revenue
Control Laboratory, New Delhi.
19. The Tax Research Unit in the Department of Revenue explained
the scope of the Exemption Notification dated 17.03.2012 in the
following manner:
"(2) Doubts have been raised regarding the scope of
the exemption from excise duty available for heena
powder or paste under S.No. 134 of notification
12
E/50488/2021
12/2012-Central Excise dated 17th March, 2012 in the
context of the phrase "not mixed with any other
ingredient". It is clarified that the exemption is
available to heena powder mixed with a liquid, so
for that the liquid is a medium to change the form
of heena powder into paste but excludes products
like heena dye and such other products which are
cosmetics."
(emphasis supplied)
20. Thus, exemption would be available to an assessee if henna
powder is mixed with a liquid, so far that the liquid is a medium to
change the form of henna powder into paste. The liquid is not
restricted to water. It can be any liquid which is a medium to change
the form of henna powder into paste. What has been excluded are
products like henna dye and such other products which are
cosmetics.
21. In Prem Henna decided on 19.12.2018, in the matter of the
appellant itself and in the matter of manufacture of henna paste from
henna powder, the show cause notice that was issued to the
appellant alleged that the appellant was mixing clove oil with henna
powder for the manufacture of henna paste and, therefore, since
another ingredient was added to henna powder, the appellant would
not be entitled to the benefit of the Exemption Notification. Rejecting
this contention, the Tribunal held that clove oil is a liquid used to
make henna paste from henna powder and make it marketable as
such paste in cones. Such a process for making the paste
marketable/usable by the customers would not mean that the
appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of the Exemption
Notification. In this connection, the Tribunal placed reliance upon the
13
E/50488/2021
letter dated 10.07.2014 issued by the Board regarding the Exemption
Notification.
22. It also needs to be noted that by an order dated 13.03.2018,
the Tribunal in Prem Henna remanded the appeals to the
adjudicating authority to follow the standard tests specified for henna
paste instead of following the tests prescribed for henna powder to
determine whether 'other ingredients' had been used for manufacture
of henna paste from henna powder. The relevant portion of the order
dated 13.03.2018 of the Tribunal is reproduced below:
"6. Having heard both the sides, we note that we
are constrained by the lack of clarity in the proceedings
initiated by the Revenue. First of all, when the nature of
product is in dispute, it is necessary to have it tested by
the competent laboratory to get a clear view. Such
tests were done by the Chemical Examiner.
Unfortunately, the methodology adopted is
apparently not proper. The standard specified for
testing the Henna Powder cannot be applied to
paste. The IS Standard clearly states that the
comparison of samples should be done with the
standard plants source, which has not been got done.
We note while re-testing, such comparison of proper
sample has been made and the report, in fact, came in
favour of the claim made by the appellant/assessee. In
such scenario, we are constrained that the basic facts
of the case have not been found in chromatography
test so that the Tribunal will be able to pass an order on
legality of the claim of the appellant. That being the
case, we are left with no alternative except to set aside
the impugned orders and remand the matter to the
Original Authority for a due process to be followed
including re-testing of the product manufactured and
cleared by the appellant. Here, we note that both the
sides agree that the product are continued to be
manufactured by the appellant/assessee and they
continued to claim the nature of products as same. We
14
E/50488/2021
note that without having an essential test by the
proper method, the decision on the claim of the
appellant cannot be made by us. Accordingly, all
the appeals are allowed by way of remand with
the above observations."
(emphasis supplied)
23. The adjudicating authority, pursuant to the aforesaid order of
the Tribunal, took fresh sample of henna paste and ultimately
dropped the show cause notice on the basis of the fresh test report
dated 17.11.2022. This test report is reproduced below:
"TEST REPORT
Reported Dated: 17.11.2022
1. Lab No. CRCL/14/371(CGST)/27.10.2022
2. Test Memo No. 02/2022
3. Name Contact information of customer:
Superintendent CGST Range-18, Div-D, Pali
4. Description of Sample: HENNA PASTE
5. Sample Plan: Sample Not Drawn By this Laboratory.
Report; Report: The sample describe as Henna Paste is in
unit packing having description as Neeta Mehandi Cone. The
sample is in the form of dark brown colored paste having
pleasant smell. It is having following constants.
Sr. Parameters Test method Result
No.
1. Moisture (% by mass) IS 173 18:2020 66.44%
2. Lawsone of content IS 173 18:2020 Present
3. Chemical Dyes IS 173 18:2020 Absent
4. Lead mg/kg AOAC 2015 1.08
5. Arsenic mg/kg AOAC 2015 0.1
6. pH of the sample IS 173 18:2020 5.8
Based on the above analyzed parameter reveals that
the tested sample under reference meets the
requirement of Henna paste as per IS - 173 18:2020
(Henna (Mehandi) Paste in shape of cone and other
allied packaging - specification).
Sealed remnant returned.
Tested by (Dr. Vittal Sharavath)
15
E/50488/2021
(Dr. Aradhana Sharma) Chemical Examiner-II
Assistant Chemical Examiner Authorized Signature"
(emphasis supplied)
24. Thus, when the methodology specified for henna paste as per
IS-173 18:2020 was followed, a finding was recorded in the test
report that the tested sample meets the requirement of henna paste.
25. The relevant portions of the order dated 31.01.2023 passed by
the Commissioner, after the remand by the Tribunal by order dated
13.03.2018, in respect of the show cause notice dated 06.04.2015
issued for the period 01.04.2014 to 31.08.2014 and the show cause
notice dated 06.10.2015 issued for the period 01.09.2014 to
31.03.2015 are reproduced below:
"10.1. In view of the fact that the CESTAT order dated
18.03.2018 has been accepted by the department the
third report dated 17.11.2022 and 22.11.2022 for the
sample drawn on 19.10.2022 (Para 8.5 above), which
are also the latest reports in this case, are most
relevant to decide the present case. The said reports
says that the Heena Powder and Heena paste
manufactured by the does not contain any extraneous
dyes/chemical dyes.
xxxxxxxxxxx
11.2 In the present case as per the CRCL report
dated 17.11.2022 and 22.11.2022 the Heena
p0aste and Heena Powder manufactured by the
assessee does not contains any extraneous
dyes/chemical dyes. I find that Heena Paste and
Heena Powder in present case did not contain any other
ingredient except mixed with a liquid, so the liquid was
a medium to change the Heena powder into paste.
11.3 Thus, I find that Heena paste manufactured
by the assessee in this case also does not contain
any other ingredients except that Heena powder
is mixed with oils. The clarification by the Board
16
E/50488/2021
denies the mixing of dyes and cosmetic products
only, which was not found in the Heena paste in
the instant case as per CRCL testing report dated
30.12.2015. xxxxxxxxxx.
11.4 Hence the benefit of exemption of the Sl.
No. 134 of the notification no. 12/2013-CE dated
01.03.2013 is available to the assessee in view of
the Board's D.O.F. No. 334/15/2014 TRU dated-
10.07.2014."
(emphasis supplied)
26. The Commissioner, in the aforesaid order dated 31.01.2023,
also placed reliance upon an earlier order dated 20.03.2015 passed
by the Commissioner in respect of Meenakshi Heena Products,
against which order the appeal filed by the department before the
Tribunal was dismissed by order dated 13.03.2018. The
Commissioner also noticed that the said order of the Tribunal had
been accepted by the department.
27. The Commissioner also placed reliance upon an order dated
18.03.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of
M/s. Suresh and Company 8, wherein the order of the adjudicating
authority was set aside. The relevant portion of the order passed by
the Commissioner is reproduced:
"11.7 I also place reliance on the findings of Hon'ble
Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Jodhpur vide OIA No.-
084(CRM)CE/JDR/2021 dated 18.03.2021 in the case of
M/s. Suresh and Company, Sojat City, Pali wherein
Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the OIO of
original adjudicating authority on merits being the
demand unsustainable:-
8. OIA No.-084(CRM)CE/JDR/2021 dated 18.03.2021
17
E/50488/2021
"Para-10 I find that Heena paste in
present case did not contain any other
ingredient except mixed with a liquid (Clove
oil to prevent decay and with nilgiri and
turpentine oil to keep paste wet), so the
liquid was a medium to change the Heena
powder into paste. I find that Board has also
clarified vide D.O.F No.334/15/2014 TRU
dated- 01.07.2014 that the exemption is
available to Heena powder mixed with a
liquid so that the liquid is a medium to
change the form of the Heena powder into
paste but excludes products like Heena dye
and such other products which are
cosmetics. I find that Heena paste also does
not contain any other ingredients except
that Heena powder is mixed with liquid. I
also find that in the notice as well as in
impugned OIO, the allegations and findings
are not that it is Heena dye or cosmetic,
therefore benefit of board's circular deserves
to be extended".
11.7.1 The above mentioned order of the
Commissioner (Appeals) has already been accepted by
the Committee of Commissioners on 24.05.2021 on
merit.
12. In view of the above discussions and findings, I
hold that:-
12.1 I find that Heena powder and Heena paste
manufactured by the assessee in this case does
not contain any other ingredients except that
Heena powder is mixed with oils, this is in
consonance with the clarification issued under
Board's D.O.F. No. 334/15/2014 TRU dated -
10.07.2014, I also find that in the show cause there
was no allegations that it is Heena dye or cosmetic,
therefore, benefit in terms of board's D.O.F. No.
334/15/2014 TRU dated-10.07.2014, can be extended
in this case."
(emphasis supplied)
18
E/50488/2021
28. In Prem Mehandi Centre decided on 19.12.2018, the Tribunal
held as follows:
"2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of
henna powder and heena paste in cone falling under
Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff. For the period
1.3.2013 to 30.06.2013, the appellant did not pay
central excise duty on heena powder & heena paste
cleared by them. They have claimed exemption in
terms of Sl.No.134 of the Notification No.12/2013-CE
dated 1.3.2013. The said entry states that heena
powder or paste, "not mixed with any other ingredient"
falling under Chapter 33 are liable to nil rate of duty.
By the said impugned order, the benefit of the said
exemption was not allowed to the appellant.
6. We note that the objection of the Revenue, that
no other ingredients should have been added to claim
the exemption, is correct. However, the facts of the
present case did not reveal that any other ingredients
at all has been added in making the henna paste.
Admittedly, the clove oil is a liquid used to make henna
paste from powder and make it marketable as such
paste in cones. We note that the said process is for
making the paste marketable/useable much later by
the customers. There is no addition of any active
ingredients to heena powder to make the heena paste
other than the said oil or liquid. Based on the
clarification issued by the Board cited above and the
materials on record, the impugned order is set aside
and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if
any."
29. In view of the aforesaid orders passed by the Tribunal, the
Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals), it has to be held that the
appellant, while manufacturing henna paste from henna powder,
would be entitled to avail the benefit of the Exemption Notification.
19
E/50488/2021
30. The Commissioner, in the present case, has not accepted the
two orders each dated 19.12.2018 in Prem Henna (Excise Appeal
No. 52327 of 2018) and in Prem Mehandi Centre (Excise Appeal
No. 53480 of 2018) for the reason that the department did not file
appeals to challenge these orders passed by the Tribunal and had
accepted the decisions of the Tribunal only on the ground of
monetary limit. In this connection, the Commissioner placed reliance
upon section 35R of the Central Excise Act to hold that the final
orders passed by the Tribunal did not have a binding effect.
31. The Commissioner also placed reliance upon the Circular dated
20.10.2010 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes. The
relevant portion of the said Circular is reproduced below:
"It may also be noted that, wherever it is decided
not to file appeal in pursuance of these
instructions, which are aimed solely at reducing
Government litigation, such cases shall not have
any precedent value. In such cases, Commissioners
should specifically record that "even though the
decision is not acceptable, appeal is not being filed as
the amount involved is less than the monetary limit
prescribed by the Board." Further, in such cases,
there will be no presumption that the Department
has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed
issues in the case of same assessee or in case of
any other assessees, if the amount involved
exceeds the monetary limits. Thus, in case any
prior order is being cited on facts and law, it must
be checked whether such order(s) were accepted
only on account of the monetary limit before
following them in the name of judicial discipline.
In respect of an order where it is decided not to file
appeal in pursuance of these instructions, a data base
needs to be created so that all the Commissionerates
are made aware of the orders that are accepted solely
20
E/50488/2021
on the ground that the revenue involved is below the
threshold prescribed herein and which should not be
taken as having precedent value. The details of such
orders in respect of CESTAT and the High Courts is
required to be furnished by the Zonal Chief
Commissioners in Proforma enclosed (Annexure III E &
Annexure III F) which should form part of the Monthly
Technical Report being sent to the Directorate of Legal
Affairs for posting on the departmental website. These
Annexures III E and III F should be sent to the
Directorate of Legal Affairs by e-mail also to dla-
[email protected].
The above instructions of the Board must be adhered to
strictly for all appeals filed on or after 1.11.2010."
(emphasis supplied)
32. The Commissioner, after making reference to the said Circular,
observed:
"14.6 xxxxxxxxxx
In view of these instructions, it is evident that in
cases where the Department decides not to
pursue the matter further before the higher
appellate forums due to low tax effect, the
decisions/ orders/ judgments passed by Hon'ble
Tribunal or High Court, as the case may be, shall
not have any precedent value and the Department
is at liberty to pursue the future cases before the
higher appellate fora on merits. In the instant cases
mentioned in para 14.2 & 14.3, the Department has not
accepted the orders passed by Hon'ble Tribunal on
merits but on monetary limit."
(emphasis supplied)
33. The effect of section 35R of the Central Excise Act and the
Circular dated 20.10.2010 issued by the Central Board of Indirect
Taxes would need to be considered.
34. It would, therefore, be necessary to reproduce section 35R of
the Central Excise Act and it is as follows:
21
E/50488/2021
"35R. Appeal not to be filed in certain cases
(1) The Central Board of Excise and Customs
may, from time to time, issue orders or instructions or
directions fixing such monetary limits, as it may deem
fit, for the purposes of regulating the filing of appeal,
application, revision or reference by the Central Excise
Officer under the provisions of this chapter.
(2) Where, in pursuance of the orders or
instructions or directions, issued under sub-
section (1), the Central Excise Officer has not
filed an appeal, application, revision or reference
against any decision or order passed under the
provisions of this Act, it shall not preclude such
Central Excise Officer from filing appeal,
application, revision or reference in any other
case involving the same or similar issues or
questions of law.
(3) Notwithstanding the fact that no
appeal, application, revision or reference has
been filed by the Central Excise Officer pursuant
to the orders or instructions or directions issued
under sub-section (1), no person, being a party in
appeal, application, revision or reference shall
contend that the Central Excise Officer has
acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue
by not filing appeal, application, revision or
reference.
(4) The Commissioner (Appeals) or the
Appellate Tribunal or court hearing such appeal,
application, revision or reference shall have regard to
the circumstances under which appeal, application,
revision or reference was not filed by the Central Excise
Officer in pursuance of the orders or instructions or
directions issued under sub-section (1).
(5) Every order or instruction or direction
issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on
or after the 20th day of October, 2010, but before the
date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the
assent of the President, fixing monetary limits for filing
22
E/50488/2021
of appeal, application, revision or reference shall be
deemed to have been issued under sub-section (1) and
the provisions of sub-section (1) and the provisions of
sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) shall apply accordingly."
(emphasis supplied)
35. Section 35R of the Central Excise Act was inserted w.e.f.
20.10.2010. Sub-section (1) gives power to the Central Board of
Excise and Customs to issue orders or instructions or directions,
fixing monetary limits for the purposes of regulating the filing of
appeals. Sub-section (2) provides that where in terms of the orders
or instructions issued under sub-section (1), the Central Excise
Officer has not filed an appeal against any decision rendered under
the Central Excise Act, it shall not preclude the Central Excise Officer
from filing an appeal, in any other case involving the same or similar
issues or questions of law. Sub-section (3) provides that if an appeal
is not filed in terms of the instructions or directions issued under sub-
section (1) then a person who is a party in the appeal shall not
contend that the Central Excise Officer has acquiesced in the decision
on the disputed issue by not filing appeal.
36. This section is, therefore, limited to cases where because of the
monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals in terms of the instruction
or directions issued under sub-section (1) of section 35R of the
Central Excise Act an appeal is not filed by the department. It
provides that non filing of the appeal shall not preclude the Central
Excise Officer from filing an appeal in any other case involving the
same or similar issues or questions of law. It, further, provides that
merely because an appeal has not been filed because of monetary
23
E/50488/2021
limits no person, being a party in the appeal, shall contend that the
Central Excise Officer has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed
issue by not filing an appeal. This is for the reason that in many
matters when a decision is taken by the department not to file an
appeal because of monetary limits or otherwise, the party to such an
appeal raise a plea in subsequent cases that the Central Excise
Officer has acquiesced in the decision and so it has to be followed.
37. It is, therefore, more than apparent that section 35R of the
Central Excise Act does not in any manner provide that order of the
Tribunal against which a decision has been taken by the department
not to file an appeal because of the monetary restrictions imposed by
the Central Board of Excise and Customs would not have any
precedent value. A decision of a Tribunal cannot be rendered
ineffective merely because the department takes a decision not to file
an appeal because of the monetary restrictions or otherwise. Unless a
decision of the Tribunal is set aside by the High Court or the Supreme
Court, it will continue to bind the revenue authorities empowered to
decide matters under the provisions of the Central Excise Act. The
Circular dated 20.10.2010, which was issued by the Central Board of
Indirect Taxes after the insertion of section 35R of the Central Excise
Act on 20.10.2010, cannot also render any decision of the Tribunal to
have no precedence value if a decision is taken by the department
not to file an appeal against the decision of the Tribunal because of
monetary restrictions. At best, in such cases, a party would be
precluded from contending that the decision against which appeal
was not filed had attained finality. It cannot, under any
24
E/50488/2021
circumstances, be contended by the department that the decision of
the Tribunal in such cases would not have any binding effect.
38. In such circumstances that portion of the Circular that provides
that "wherever it is decided not to file appeal in pursuance of these
instructions, which are aimed solely at reducing Government
litigation, such cases shall not have any precedent value" is not only
not in accordance with the provisions of section 35R of the Central
Excise Act but is also contrary to judicial discipline as the binding
effect of a decision of a Tribunal cannot be taken away by merely
deciding not to file an appeal because of the monetary restrictions
imposed by Circulars or Orders. All that can be derived from the
provisions of section 35R of the Central Excise Act is that in such
matters the party to the decision cannot in subsequent cases contend
that the department has acquiesced in the decisions.
39. It needs to be noted that though the appellant had filed an
appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 13.03.2018 in Prem
Henna contending that instead of remanding the matter to the
adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, the Tribunal should have
allowed the appeals, but subsequently the Supreme Court by
judgment and order dated 27.07.2021 dismissed the Civil Appeal filed
by the appellant holding that:
"We see no reason to deviate from the view taken by
the Tribunal to relegate the parties before the
adjudication authority in the fact situation of the
present case. Hence, we decline to interfere in these
Appeals. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals are dismissed."
25
E/50488/2021
40. It is in pursuance of the order passed by the Supreme Court
that the adjudicating authority, by a detailed order dated 31.01.2023,
dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notices dated
06.04.2015 and 06.10.2015. The other decisions dated 19.12.2018 of
the Tribunal in Prem Mehandi Centre (Excise Appeal No. 53480 of
2018) was in any case binding on the Commissioner.
41. The Commissioner, therefore, clearly fell in error in holding that
in cases where the department decides not to pursue the matter
before a higher appellate forum due to monetary limits, the decision
of the Tribunal or the High Court shall not have any precedence
value. In fact, the observations made by the Commissioner are
against all propriety and judicial discipline. So long as the orders of
the Tribunal have not been set aside, the Commissioner is bound to
follow the decision of the Tribunal.
42. This observation made by the Commissioner compels us to
remind the adjudicating authorities of the observations made by the
Supreme Court and the High Courts on the issue relating to judicial
discipline.
43. It would be pertinent to refer to the decision of Supreme Court
in The Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. the Income-Tax Officer,
Bhopal 9. The Supreme Court pointed out that it would result in chaos
in the administration of justice if a subordinate Tribunal refuses to
carry out directions given to it by a superior Tribunal as this would be
destructive of one of the basic principles of administration of justice.
The observations of the Supreme Court are as follows:
9. AIR 1961 SC 182
26
E/50488/2021
"By that order the respondent virtually refused to
carry out the directions which a superior tribunal
had given to him in exercise of its appellate
powers in respect of an order of assessment
made by him. Such refusal is in effect a denial of
justice, and is furthermore destructive of one of the
basic principles in the administration of justice based as
it is in this country on a hierarchy of courts. If a
subordinate tribunal refuses to carry out
directions given to it by a superior tribunal in the
exercise of its appellate powers, the result will be
chaos in the administration of justice and we
have indeed found it very difficult to appreciate
the process of reasoning by which the learned
Judicial Commissioner while roundly condemning
the respondent for refusing to carry out the
directions of the superior tribunal, yet held that
no manifest injustice resulted from such refusal.
It must be remembered that the order of the Tribunal
dated April 22, 1954, was not under challenge before
the Judicial Commissioner. That order had become final
and binding on the parties, and the respondent could
not question it in any way. As a matter of fact the
Commissioner of Income-tax had made an application
for a reference, which application was subsequently
withdrawn. The Judicial Commissioner was not sitting in
appeal over the Tribunal and we do not think that in the
circumstances of this case it was open to him to say
that the order of the Tribunal was wrong and,
therefore, there was no injustice in disregarding that
order. As we have said earlier, such view is
destructive of one of the basic principles of the
administration of justice. In fairness to him it must
be stated that learned counsel for the respondent did
not attempt to support the judgment of the Judicial
Commissioner on the ground that no manifest injustice
resulted from the refusal of the respondent to carry out
the directions of a superior tribunal. He conceded that
even if the order of the Tribunal was wrong, a
subordinate and inferior tribunal could not disregard it;
he readily recognised the sanctity and importance of
27
E/50488/2021
the basic principle that a subordinate tribunal must
carry out the directions of a superior tribunal."
(emphasis supplied)
44. This principle was also laid down by Supreme Court in Dharma
Chand Jain vs. The State of Bihar 10 and the observations are:
"The State Government being a subordinate authority
in the matter of grant of a mining lease, was obliged
under the law to carry out the orders of the Central
Government as indicated above. But the State
Government declined to do so on the ground that it had
laid down a policy that the mining leases in respect of
the area should be given only to those who were
prepared to set up a cement factory. It was clearly not
open to the State Government to decline to carry out
the orders of the Central government on this ground,
particularly because the Central Government was a
tribunal superior to the State Government...................."
45. In Smt. Kaushalya Devi Bogra and others vs. The Land
Acquisition Officer and another 11, the Supreme Court also
observed that the direction of the Appellate Court is binding on the
courts subordinate thereto and that judicial discipline requires and
decorum known to law warrants that appellate directions should be
taken as binding and followed. In this connection, the Supreme Court
referred to the observations made by the House of Lords and the
relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court is reproduced
below:
"The direction of the appellate court is certainly
binding on the courts subordinate thereto. That
apart, in view of the provisions of Article 41 of the
Constitution, all courts in India are bound to follow the
10. AIR 1976 SC 1433
11. AIR 1984 SC 892
28
E/50488/2021
decisions of this Court. Judicial discipline requires
and decorum known to law warrants that
appellate directions should be taken as binding
and followed. It is appropriate to usefully recall
certain observations of the House of Lords in Broom v.
Cassell & Co.(1) Therein Lord Hailsham, L. C.
observed:
"The fact is, and I hope it will never be
necessary to say so again, that in the
hierarchical system of courts which exist in
this country, it is necessary for each
lower tier, including the Court of
Appeal, to accept loyally the decisions
of the higher tier."
Lord Reid added:
"It seems to me obvious that the Court of
Appeal failed to understand Lord Delvin's
speech but whether they did or not, I would
have accepted them to know that they had
no power to give any such direction and to
realise the impossible position in which they
were seeking to put those judges in advising
or directing them to disregard a decision of
this House."
Lord Diplock observed at p. 874 of the Reports:
"It is inevitable in a hierarchical system of
courts that there are decisions of the
Supreme appellate tribunal which do not
attract the unanimous approval of all
members of the judiciary. When I sat in the
Court of Appeal, I sometimes thought the
House of Lords was wrong in over ruling me.
Even since that time there have been
occasions, of which the instant appeal is
one, when alone or in company. I have
dissented from a decision of the majority of
this House. But the judicial system only
works if someone is allowed to have the
29
E/50488/2021
last word and if that last word, once
spoken, is loyally accepted."
(emphasis supplied)
46. In this connection it will also be appropriate to refer to the
decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Kamlakshi
Finance Corporation Ltd 12. The order passed by the Assistant
Collector not only ignored the order of the Collector (Appeals)
remanding the matter, but also distinguished the decision of the
Tribunal by observing that the decision of the Tribunal had not been
agreed to by the Department as an appeal had been filed in the
Supreme Court. The assessee filed a writ petition in the Bombay High
Court to challenge the said order of the Assistant Collector. The High
Court not only quashed the order passed by the Assistant Collector
but also directed the Department to allocate the matter to a
competent officer for passing a proper order. It is against this
decision of the Bombay High Court that the Union of India preferred
an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remarked
that as the Assistant Commissioner had not followed the decision of
the Tribunal merely because an appeal had been filed by the
Department before the Supreme Court, the High Court had rightly
criticized the conduct of the Assistant Collector since it resulted in
harassment to the assessee caused by the failure to give effect to the
order passed by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court also observed that
the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors who
functions under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and that the principles
of judicial discipline require that the orders of higher appellate
12. 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)
30
E/50488/2021
authorities are unreservedly followed by the subordinate authorities.
The relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court is reproduced
below:
"6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the
officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing
the impugned orders. They perhaps genuinely felt that
the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it
was accepted, the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri
Reddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with
the correctness or otherwise of their conclusion or of
any factual mala fides but with the fact that the
officers, in reaching in their conclusion, by-passed two
appellate orders in regard to the same issue which were
placed before them, one of the Collector (Appeals) and
the other of the Tribunal. The High Court has, in our
view, rightly criticised this conduct of the
Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the
assessee caused by the failure of these officers to
give effect to the orders of authorities higher to
them in the appellate heirarchy. It cannot be too
vehemently emphasised that it is of utmost importance
that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before
them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of
the appellate authorities; The order of the Appellate
Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors
working within his jurisdiction and the order of
the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant
Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who
function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
The principles of judicial discipline require that
the orders of the higher appellate authorities
should be followed unreservedly by the
subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order
of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the
department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is
the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground
for not following it unless its operation has been
suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is
not followed, the result will only be undue harassment
to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws.
31
E/50488/2021
*****
8. We have dealt with this aspect at some length, because it has been suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the observations made by the High Court, have been harsh on the officers. It is clear that the observations of the High Court, seemingly vehement, and apparently unpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curb a tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed to become widespread, could result in considerable harassment to the assesses- public without any benefit to the Revenue. We would like to say that the department should take these observations in the proper spirit. The observations of the High Court should be kept in mind in future and the utmost regard should be paid by the adjudicating authorities and the appellate authorities to the requirements of judicial discipline and the need for giving effect to the orders of the higher appellate authorities which are binding on them."
(emphasis supplied)
47. The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court have been referred to by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. 13 and it has been observed that when an order is passed by a higher authority, the lower authority is bound, keeping in view the principles of judicial discipline.
48. Recently, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax 14 consisting of the Acting Chief Justice R. Mahadevan (now Hon'ble Judge of the Supreme Court) and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq also examined this
13. (2007) 2 SCC 326
14. Writ Petition No's. 31725 and 31726 of 2023 decided on 24.05.2024 32 E/50488/2021 issue. What was assailed before the Madras High Court was a reference order in which Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical) differed in their views. The Madras High Court noticed that the issue that had come up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Tribunal had been dealt with and decided by co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal and so there was no reason to make a reference to a third Member. In this connection, the Madras High Court also made reference to various decisions and the observations made by the Madras High Court are reproduced below:
"14. Referring to the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Limited reported in 1992 Suppl (1) Supreme Court Cases 443 and in East India Commercial Co. Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (SC), the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that judicial discipline demands that the decision reached by the coordinate benches has to be scrupulously followed by the other Tribunal. However, in this case, the Tribunal has taken a contrary decision and refused to place reliance on the decisions of the Coordinate Benches. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, without taking note of the ratio laid down by the Coordinate Benches, on the very same issue, the Member (Technical) has passed the prejudicial portion of the order, which cannot be allowed to be sustained.
15. We find much force in the submissions so made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. The prejudicial portion of the order has been passed by the Tribunal in derogation of the various orders passed by the coordinate benches of the Tribunal on the very same issue. xxxxxxxxxx. Therefore, we hold that the very reference made by the Tribunal to determine as to whether the 33 E/50488/2021 conclusion reached by the Member (Judicial) is right or the one made by the Member (Judicial) itself is unnecessary. The issue before the Tribunal has already been examined and adjudicated by the coordinate benches and it binds the Tribunal in all respects. While so, the Tribunal cannot go beyond the settled issue and to re-adjudicate the same by referring the dispute to a third member. Judicial discipline requires that the orders of the coordinate bench or the jurisdictional High Court have to be followed without in any manner attempting to factually re- examine or re-adjudicating the same issue.
16. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others, reported in (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943, in which, the aspect of judicial discipline has been discussed in detail.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
78. There have been several instances of different Benches of the High Courts not following the judgments/orders of coordinate and even larger Benches. In some cases, the High Courts have gone to the extent of ignoring the law laid down by this Court without any tangible reason. Likewise, there have been instances in which smaller Benches of this Court have either ignored or bypassed the ratio of the judgments of the larger Benches including the Constitution Benches. These cases are illustrative of non-adherence to the rule of judicial discipline which is sine qua non for sustaining the system."
(emphasis supplied)
49. The Madras High Court also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others 15, in which the aspect of judicial discipline has been discussed in detail. Paragraph 90 of the decision of the Supreme Court in
15. (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943 34 E/50488/2021 Official Liquidator, on which reliance has been placed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, is reproduced below:
"90. We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in last six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the courts at the grass root will not be able to decide as to which of the judgment lay down the correct law and which one should be followed."
(emphasis supplied)
50. In the instant case, as noticed above, though there were two binding decisions of the Tribunal on the issue that had arisen for consideration before the Commissioner, but the Commissioner decided to not follow the decisions as according to him they had no precedence value.
51. What further needs to be noticed is that pursuant to the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the Tribunal in Prem Henna decided on 13.03.2018, the Commissioner dropped the show cause notices after taking note of the fresh test report dated 17.11.2022 as also the 35 E/50488/2021 decision dated 18.03.2021 of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of Suresh and Company as also the order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the Commissioner in the matter of Meenakshi Heena Products as also the decision dated 19.12.2018 of the Tribunal in Prem Henna Centre.
52. The appellant would, therefore, clearly be entitled to avail the benefit of the Exemption Notification dated 17.03.2012, as amended on 01.03.2013, when manufacturing henna paste from henna powder.
53. In view of the aforesaid, it would not be necessary to examine the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case.
54. The order dated 30.12.2020 passed by the Commissioner is, accordingly, set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Order pronounced on 03.01.2025) (JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA) PRESIDENT (P. V. SUBBA RAO) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shenaj, JB