9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3301 and hence exempted under Notification No. 167/1986, dated 1-3-86 as amended. The contention of Revenue is that the two products manufactured by JMP-II are classifiable under CETH 3302.90 and therefore availment of exemption in terms of Notification No. 167/1986-C.E., dated 1-3-86 is not correct. The investigation taken up by Revenue culminated into issuance of show cause notice and the impugned order, whereby the Commissioner in his order confirmed the demand for Central Excise duty of Rs. 63,27,000/-, imposed equal amount of penalty and demanded interest as applicable. 2.1 The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that there is no dispute about the manufacturing process which is as under : 2.2 All herbs and spices are taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.90.60 covers aqueous distillate of essential oil not elsewhere specified and aqueous solution of essential oil. According to him, this shows that the product manufactured by them is clearly covered under Chapter Heading 3301. 2.4 He also relies upon the Customs Tariff of Russian Federation. Note 2 of Chapter 33 of Customs Tariff is relevant and according to this note "the expression odoriferous under Heading 3302 refers only to the substance of Heading 3301; to odoriferous constitutes isolated from those substance or to synthetic aromatic. 2.5 He also drew support from Pakistan Trading Nomenclature. 2.6 He submits that Chapter 33.02 talks of "mixtures of odoriferous substances". Chapter Note 2 defines the expression to refer only to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontrary to this claim there is a clear finding which has not been controverted about the use of essential oils and attars by the appellant. Therefore, he submits that Chapter Heading 3301 is not applicable. 3.3 As regards limitation, he points out that in the declaration, process of manufacturing has not been explained and even in the list of products, Attar Shamma has not been included. In the absence of process of manufacture, there is a clear mis declaration on the part of appellant and therefore limitation applies. 3.4 He also relies upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Mumbai v. S.H. Kelkar & Co. [1998 (102) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.)] wherein it was held that Aballide in question is classifiable as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture their final product but omitted to mention that they had used essential oils and attars later and we note that learned SDR is right in pointing out that Revenue has found evidence of addition of these items. The Chapter note regarding expression of odoriferous substance would not help the appellant in view of discussion above. What is required to be considered is the manufacturing process as well as end use and on both parameters, is against the appellant. Further, we also note that learned SDR has produced evidence of clearance of similar products by other manufacturers classifying the same under CETH 3302. We also find that the decisions cited by learned SDR are relevant. The fact that the competitors of the appellant had classified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
