2008(09)LCX0036

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Ashok Bhan and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.

Commissioner of Customs, Patna

Versus

Precise Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

Civil Appeal Nos. 438-448 of 2006, decided on 9-9-2008

Cases Quoted -

Commissioner v. Sant Product Ltd. - 2004(01)LCX0093 Eq 2004 (171) ELT 0109 (Tribunal) - Noted [Para 1]

Commissioner v. Sant Product Ltd. - 2005(10)LCX0315 Eq 2005 (190) ELT A176 (S.C.) - Relied on [Para 2]

Advocated By -

S/Shri Sanjeev K. Bhardwaj for B. Krishna Prasad Advocates, for the Appellant.
S/Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Alok Yadav and MP Devanath, Advocates, for the Respondent.

[Order]. -

Question involved in these 11 appeals is as to whether the product 'Dant Mukta' imported by the respondent is classifiable under subheading 3306.90 or 3306.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and whether the exemption under Notification No. 6/03-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 and Notification No. 40/2002-Cus., dated 12-4-2002 is available to the said product. The authority in original being Commissioner of Customs, vide order dated 25th August 2004, held that the aforesaid product is classifiable under sub-heading 3306.90. In respect of another show cause notice, Commissioner of Customs vide order dated 16th September 2004 recorded similar findings as were recorded in the order dated 25th August 2004. Against the order dated 16th September 2004, appeals were filed before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee relying upon the fact that the proceedings initiated by the Department for classifying the product as medicament were dropped by various orders of the Commissioner of Customs/Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the respondents. That against one such order-in-appeal, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal in the case of C.C. & C.E., Patna v. Sant Product Ltd. wherein respondent no. was also a party. The Tribunal did not find any merit in the Revenue's contention that the product is not classifiable under Heading 3306.10 after observing that 'Dant Mukta' and 'Dant Shakti' are identical products which are used as raw materials for manufacture of 'Lai Dant Manjan'. Thus, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee. The said judgment is reported in 2004(01)LCX0093 Eq 2004 (171) ELT 0109 (Tri.-Kolkata).


2. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, Revenue filed appeal before this Court in the assessee's own case being Civil Appeal D. No. 8706 of 2005 (now registered as Civil Appeal No. 3694 of 2005) decided on 12th July 20051 and the same was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.


3. The point in issue in the present appeals is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court which affirmed the decision of the Tribunal on merits. Consequently, the present appeals also deserve to be dismissed and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Equivalent 2008 (231) ELT 0209 (S.C.)

Equivalent 2009 (090) RLT 0287 (SC)