Merind Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Merind Ltd. vs Commr. of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 02, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29258

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/29258
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: K Kumar, S T C.
Decided On: Nov 02, 2002
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Merind Ltd.

Respondent

Commr. of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(160)ELT819Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....he also states that the details of the products were known to the department all along and the impugned order has been issued merely because action has been taken by the ministry of health and family welfare under section 26a of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 to prohibit the manufacture of such product in public interest. he also submits that the said action by the ministry of health and family welfare has no relevance to classification of a product for levy of excise duty. he also contends that there is no suppression on the part of the appellants, therefore the question of invoking the extended time limit does not arise.2. shri m.h. sheikh, learned jdr appearing for the revenue states that there was a writ petition filed in 1993 for prohibiting the manufacture of the said product on the ground that there was no therapeutic justification for the same. the appellants must be aware of this petition but they never brought this fact to the notice of the department and suppressed the same. he, therefore, argues that there was justification for invoking the extended time period. the learned advocate for the appellants, however, states that the said writ petition was against another manufacturer and not against the appellants.3. we have heard both the sides and perused the records of the case. we find that the appellants have made out a good case in their favour for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. the product in question may not have therapeutic justification and the ministry of health and family welfare has therefore exercised its power under a different enactment to prohibit its manufacture in public interest. however, since the product is a combination of vitamins b-1, b-6 and b-12 and had been in the market as medicines, the appellants' contention that it has therapeutic value cannot be brushed aside. accordingly, we waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and fix the matter for regular hearing on 15-11-2002.

Full Judgment

1. This stay application relates to Order-in-original dated 27-12-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II classifying Trineursol-H under sub-heading 2936.00 and confirming a differential duty demand of Rs. 21,32,940.00 and imposing penalty of Rs. 12,35,606/- under Section 11 AC and another amount of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 173Q.It is the contention of Shri C.S. Lodha, learned Advocate for the appellants that the product in question has therapeutic value as well as therapeutic use as it is a Fixed Dose Combination of Vitamin B-1, B-6 and B-12 and is therefore classifiable under sub-heading No.3003.00. He also states that the details of the products were known to the department all along and the impugned order has been issued merely because action has been taken by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to prohibit the manufacture of such product in public interest. He also submits that the said action by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has no relevance to classification of a product for levy of excise duty. He also contends that there is no suppression on the part of the appellants, therefore the question of invoking the extended time limit does not arise.

2. Shri M.H. Sheikh, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue states that there was a writ petition filed in 1993 for prohibiting the manufacture of the said product on the ground that there was no therapeutic justification for the same. The appellants must be aware of this petition but they never brought this fact to the notice of the department and suppressed the same. He, therefore, argues that there was justification for invoking the extended time period. The learned Advocate for the appellants, however, states that the said writ petition was against another manufacturer and not against the appellants.

3. We have heard both the sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the appellants have made out a good case in their favour for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The product in question may not have therapeutic justification and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has therefore exercised its power under a different enactment to prohibit its manufacture in public interest. However, since the product is a combination of Vitamins B-1, B-6 and B-12 and had been in the market as medicines, the appellants' contention that it has therapeutic value cannot be brushed aside. Accordingly, we waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and fix the matter for regular hearing on 15-11-2002.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Merind Ltd. vs Commr. of C. Ex. Same Subject Excise Same Judge K Kumar, S T C.