TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - CESTAT, CHENNAI]. It has been held that Herbal Shikakai Powder is classifiable as cosmetic under sub-heading 3305.99 of the CETA'85 during the period September 1996 to December 1997 and September 1996 to March 1997. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri Ramakrishna Soapnut Works Vs Superintendent - [2001 (7) TMI 153 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE] held that Shikakai Powder (used as a shampoo for cleaning hair) would fall under Heading 33.05 of the CETA under the residuary item 'others'. Tribunal in the case of CCE Tiruchirapalli Vs Medi Herbs (2006 (7) TMI 25 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) on the same product in the context of Board's Circular No.333/49/97-CX dt. 10.9.97 held that assessee was bound to pay duty on the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise issued periodical show cause notices during the year 1997. The adjudicating authority ordered that the product Shikakai Powder packed in unit containers and sold under brand name is classifiable under chapter sub heading 3305.99 of the Schedule to the CETA'85 and also confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 23,86,083/- under Rule 9 (2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order in so far as the classification of the product was upheld but the demand of duty was partly dropped on the ground of limitation. The assessee filed appeal against the classification of the goods and demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in H.M. BAGS MANUFACTURER Vs CCE 1997 (94) ELT 3 (SC) and also pointed out that in similar situation in the case of classification of Meera Herbal Shikakai Powder the then Commissioner Appeals vide his Order in Appeal No.15 to 17 / 99 (Try) dated 06.01.99 had restricted the demand with effect from 10.9.97. i find that this contention of the appellant has merit. By respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I hold that in this case, the demand made in the impugned order for the period prior to 10.9.97 fails. With regard to their contention on limitation, I find that in this case Show Cause Notice OC No.1788/97 dt. 22.10.97 was issued to demand a sum of ₹ 10,,53,442/- for the period from 5/97 to 9/97 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
