9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per: B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The appellant M/s. V.V.F. Limited is engaged in the manufacture of soaps of different varieties such as Nivea Soap, Johnson & Johnson Baby Soap and Tetmosol Soap etc., on job work basis. The dispute in the instant case relates to the classification of Tetmosol Soap manufactured by the Appellant on job work basis for M/s. Nicholas Piramal I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omprehensive reply relying on various Tribunals decisions in support of their claim that the "Tetmosol" is a medicated soap and correctly classifiabiy under C.S.H. No. 3401.11 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. The issue ultimately reached to the Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order reported in 2005 (188) E.L.T. 519 (Tribunal) = 2005 (69) RLT 367 (CESTAT-Mumbai) held that Tetmosol soap is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not specify any clause under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944, no penalty can be imposed. 5. Learned DR on the other hand submits that penalty has been rightly imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act and it cannot be said that penalty under Section 11AC is not imposable just because the demand is within the normal period. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty under section 11AC cannot be imposed. Further, we find that this is a demand for subsequent period and when the show cause notice was issued, the issue for the earlier period had not attained finality. The issue attains finality after the order was issued only. The Tribunal passed the order on 13-5-2005, whereas the show cause notice related to the year 2003. Therefore, it cannot be said that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
