9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture of patent or proprietary medicines (P or P medicines) falling under Item 14E of the First Schedule ('CET' for short) to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and of goods not elsewhere specified falling under Item 68, CET. P or P medicines were, during the material time, one of the items specified in Central Excise Notification 80/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 as eligible for duty-free first clearances for home consumption up to the value of Rs. 7.5 lakhs. However, para 2(ii) of the notification provided that the notification shall not apply to manufacturer who manufactures excisable goods falling under more than one item number of the CET and the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods by him, or on his behalf, for home c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Learned Counsel could, however, cite no authority for this submission. Item 68 is no doubt a residuary non-descript item. Nevertheless, it forms part of the Tariff Schedule and all goods falling within that item are excisable goods by virtue of the definition of the term "excisable goods" as goods specified in the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as being subject to a duty of excise [see Section 2(d) of the Central Excises and Salt Act]. The Counsel's submission is devoid of any substance and we reject the same. 5. As an alternative, the Counsel submitted that in terms of Explanation V to Notification 80/80-C.E. the clearances of "any specified goods" which were exempted from the whole of the duty leviable thereon s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fully exempt from duty in terms of notifications issued under Central Excise Rules 8(1) [see Tribunal's decision in Shree Shankar Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -1984 (17) E.L.T. 402]. 9. Turning to the Counsel's submission that, in any event, the notice of demand was barred to the extent it covered a period beyond the normal limitation of six months, we observe that the show cause notice was dated 13-7-1983 and the period for which duty was demanded was 1-4-1982 to 30-1-1983. So in the normal course the duty for period beyond six months counting from 13-7-1983 should not have been demanded. As can be seen from the Order-in-Original the extended period of limitation has been invoked as the assessee had allegedly contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso filed and were verified by the Central Excise authorities. So, the appellants bonafidely believed that it was not necessary for them to include clearance of the product Liv. 52 covered under Tariff Item 68 in the figures of clearance relevant for claiming exemption under Notification No. 80/80-C.E. As rightly pointed out by Learned Advocate, it was incumbent upon Central Excise authorities to verify all the facts before according approval to the classification list especially in the context of the declaration of the manufacture and clearance of the goods falling under Item 68. It has been stated in the Order-in-Original itself as follows :- "Accordingly, the exemption from payment of excise duty was granted to them on the basis of decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
