TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) was not correct in setting aside the penalty by holding that the respondents had not kept back any information and nothing was suppressed from the Department. Since the issue in all the eight appeals is the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingly issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the goods should not be classified under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10 attracting Central Excise Duty @ 15% as against Central Excise Duty @ 8% paid and why penalty should not be imposed. Ld. Dy. Commissioner while adjudicating the case held that the goods will be classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10 attracting Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue Shri R.D. Negi, ld. DR submits that the Commissioner was not correct in setting aside the penalty inasmuch as the respondent herein intentionally did not declare as to which pharmacopoeia or publication these products are classifiable under sub-heading 3003.20. He submits that since the medicines were not manufactured as per monogram in pharmacopoeia, the same are classifiable as Patent o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that in fiscal matters mens rea needed not to be established. In support of his contention he cited another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Travancore Agency v. CCE reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 350. Some more decisions in support of his contention were cited by the ld. DR. Ld. DR, therefore, prayed that the appeals may be allowed. 4. None appeared for the respondent. 5. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
