Collector of Central Excise Vs. Samir Pharmaceuticals

Collector of Central Excise vs Samir Pharmaceuticals

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 28, 1992

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/6909

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/6909
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jan 28, 1992
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Samir Pharmaceuticals

Legal References

Reported In: (1993)(66)ELT220TriDel

Excerpt

.....aggrieved by the decision of the collector (appeals) holding that the demand in question was time-barred, the revenue has filed the present appeal.2. shortly put, the facts of the case are that the respondents, m/s.samir pharmaceuticals are the manufacturers of p or p medicines. it is the case of the department that during the course of scrutiny, it was found that the respondents had filed classification list no. 207/81 effective from 2-11-1981 for their product "ventical injections" claiming benefit under notification no. 116/89 enclosing the label. it was approved as filed. it appears that thereafter the department got it examined subsequently by deputy chief chemist and issued the show cause notice dated 8-10-1984 for the period from 3-11-1981 to 2-1-1982 calling upon them to pay the duty amount of rs. 10,710.95. the assistant collector after usual adjudication proceedings confirmed the demand. on appeal by the respondents, the collector (appeals) held that the demand is time-barred observing that the classification list filed by the appellants and approved by the department clearly shows that the label of the product was attached giving the complete details of the product. the proper officer after verifying, approved the classification list. in these circumstances, the allegation of suppression does not stand. hence the present appeal by the revenue as aforesaid.2a. when the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. accordingly, bench in discretion proceeded to hear the appeal ex parte and heard shri l.n. murthy, learned jdr for the appellant. shri murthy reiterated the grounds taken up by the collector (appeals) in the memo of appeals.3. we have considered submissions. it is not in dispute that the label was attached to the classification list no. 207/81 giving the complete details and the same was approved by the proper officer after verification. if the proper officer was of the view that the said label required further examination by.....

Full Judgment

1. Aggrieved by the decision of the Collector (Appeals) holding that the demand in question was time-barred, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.

2. Shortly put, the facts of the case are that the respondents, M/s.

Samir Pharmaceuticals are the manufacturers of P or P Medicines. It is the case of the Department that during the course of scrutiny, it was found that the respondents had filed classification list No. 207/81 effective from 2-11-1981 for their product "Ventical Injections" claiming benefit under Notification No. 116/89 enclosing the label. It was approved as filed. It appears that thereafter the Department got it examined subsequently by Deputy Chief Chemist and issued the Show Cause Notice dated 8-10-1984 for the period from 3-11-1981 to 2-1-1982 calling upon them to pay the duty amount of Rs. 10,710.95. The Assistant Collector after usual adjudication proceedings confirmed the demand. On appeal by the respondents, the Collector (Appeals) held that the demand is time-barred observing that the classification list filed by the appellants and approved by the Department clearly shows that the label of the product was attached giving the complete details of the product. The proper officer after verifying, approved the classification list. In these circumstances, the allegation of suppression does not stand. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue as aforesaid.

2A. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, Bench in discretion proceeded to hear the appeal ex parte and heard Shri L.N. Murthy, learned JDR for the appellant. Shri Murthy reiterated the grounds taken up by the Collector (Appeals) in the Memo of Appeals.

3. We have considered submissions. It is not in dispute that the label was attached to the classification list No. 207/81 giving the complete details and the same was approved by the proper officer after verification. If the proper officer was of the view that the said label required further examination by Deputy Chief Chemist, he should have done so at that stage. In these circumstances, subsequent examination by the Deputy Chief Chemist after the approval of the classification list cannot be a ground for invoking the extended period of 5 years under Section 11-A of the Act. Accordingly, we agree with the learned Collector (Appeals) that demand was time-barred.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Samir Pharmaceuticals Same Subject MRTP