TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 542
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....micals, submits that the demand is time-barred as the goods were imported vide Bill of Entry No. 736453, dated 27-10-2009; goods were examined and tested and were provisionally released against bond; provisional assessment was finalised and test bond was cancelled on 13-11-2009, show cause notice was issued on 21-10-2010 which is beyond six months. SCN is time based in view of the following cases. (i) National Organics Chemicals Ltd. v. CC - 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1072 (affirmed in 2002 (142) E.L.T. A280 SC) (ii) Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 173 (iii) Kusum Ingots and Alloys v. CCE - 2001 (137) E.L.T. 550 (iv) Tata Oil Mills Company v. CCE -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nment has mentioned only 'saccharin'. 3. The Ld, AR for the Department reiterates the findings of OIO & OIA argues that in the final findings, the designated authority mentioned the product to include sodium saccharin, therefore, the impugned order may be upheld. He relied upon Elegan Pharmaceuticals v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1998 (104) E.L.T. (441) (Tri.)] where it was held that saccharin is the most common term for the product sodium saccharin which was sweetening substitute for sugar in the market. The words 'saccharin' used in the notification as to be given, it is generic and wider meaning to include preparation containing saccharin as main component. As such benefit of exemption under Notification No. 53/84 Central....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sodium hydrogencarbonate (sodium bicarbonate) and tartaric . acid fall in heading 38.24 We find from the above that though the Heading No. 2925.11=refers to saccharin and its salts. It is important to note that 'saccharin' and 'salts' are not one in the same. We find that the Notification No. 41/2007 & 136/2009 mentions the item to be only 'saccharin' falling under Tariff item 2925 11 00 and not Salts of Saccharin. We also find that Bombay High Court in cases of Climax Chemicals v. R. Gopalnathan [1991 (52) E.L.T. 186 (Bom)] held that in entry mentioned in the notification as 'chemical' will not include its salt. We find that the interpretation of notification should be strictly in accordance with the wording of the notification, words can....