The dealer’s products were classified under chapter 30 (Pharmaceutical). Show cause notice were issued to treat the products under chapter 33 (Cosmetics) on the basis of decision of SC in Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd u/s CCE (1996) 9 SCC 402.

In the above case the following test was laid down (1) whether the Products are being used daily and are sold without prescription by a Medical practitioners. (2) Whether the products are available in General Stores, Department / Grocery Shops.

The court rejected the contention of dept. on the following reason: -

a) A mere decision of a court of law without a change in the nature of product or change in the use of product or a fresh interpretation of tariff heading, it cannot be justified for change in classification.

b) For a product to be classified as cosmetic must satisfy note 2 of chapter 33; i.e., "they must be put in packing as labels, literature & other indication showing that they are for use as cosmetic or toilet preparation".

c) Product cannot be held as cosmetic merely because it is not sold by chemist or under doctor’s prescription. Revenue has the burden of proof to discharge with evidence that product is classifiable as cosmetic, which is not done here, and show cause is issued merely relying on a court case.

The petitioner dealer is a small scale Industry manufacturing polyester texturised yarn falling under 54.03. The Central Government issued a notification dated 25th April 1994 allowing slab wise exemption of goods specified under notification.

The petitioner were unaware of notification and cleared goods under full rate of duty till 20th May, 1994. A show cause notice was issued to petitioner asking from them the difference duly as per slab from 1st April till the date the petitioner moved to clearance by way of notification. The matter was agitated before CCE (Appeal) who held that the notification will be applicable to them from the date they cleared the goods under notification even if it is from the middle of the year.

The department took the matter to CEGAT. In the meanwhile, three reported judgments were granted in favour of the petitioner assessee on the same issue. In the case of Watts Electronics Pvt Ltd (70 ELT 127) Shree Cables & Conductors Ltd 135 ELT A310. In view of these decisions the petitioner did not appear in person at the time of hearing before CEGAT.

Tribunal passed an order in favour of the department disregarding above judgment.

The petitioner filed a writ in Gujarat High Court. Wherein it was held that Tribunal ought not to have changed its view without assigning any reason or without referring to its earlier view.

Held further that three months from date of dismissal is a reasonable period. 8% Interest p.a. should be granted.

The petitioner deposited amount on directions of high court. The petitioner won the matter in high court. The department went in Supreme Court. The departmental appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court. The amounts deposited by the petitioner become refundable within reasonable time.

The petitioner was not granted refund. They were compelled to send written notice through their advocate. The petitioner were unnecessarily required to make application u/s. 11B one objection after the other was raised unnecessarily. The petitioner filed writ petition. The refund was granted during pendency of this petition.

The court held that there was no justification for the excise dept to retain the amount deposited. They held that, three months is a reasonable time period within which the refund should have been granted and hence ordered to grant interest @ 8% from after three months from Supreme Courts order till the date of refund of amount.

The assessee is a manufacturer of PTY twisted yarn. It was alleged by the department that goods were cleared at a lower value from the factory gate in fictitious names and they were subsequently sold to actual buyers at higher value. Showcause notices were therefore issued stating therein that price shown in invoice did not reflected correct assessable value. The CCE (A) allowed the appeals of the assessee manufacturer.

The Tribunal held that department brought no evidence to prove any flow back of money, which would justify rejection of Invoice Values. The department in spite of being aware of actual users of goods did not make any effort to get information as to whether sale price was higher than shown in Invoice.

The Tribunal further held that statements given by the assessee to bank for credit facilities cannot be relied upon unless it is established with additional other evidence of the clandestine removal of the manufactured goods.

The question before the Tribunal was whether the pump as a product is to be classified as above on the basis of their use or they are to be classified as "Power driven pumps primary designed for handling water".

It was held that the finding that Pumps cleared for use in air-conditioning machines amounts to parts of air-conditioning machine is totally erroneous. The pumps are merely used to circulate water in the air-conditioning systems and cannot be considered air-conditioning machine.

Similarly it was held that Hydraulic turbine is a rotary machine in which a revolving wheel is driven by a flow of water or steam or gas or wind to generate electrical power and therefore a pump which is used to pump water from sources to the turbine cannot be treated as parts of Hydraulic turbine.

The dealer were issued a show cause notice for receiving consulting engineering service from a foreign enterprise namely M/s Tyreign Inc USA.

The service rendered by the foreign party were " On site technical support, on site technical training field engineering, complete technical information pertaining to methods data procedure and technique and training of the employees of Indian company."

It was decided after interpreting the agreement entered into, that these services are Scientific and Technical Consultancy services and not consulting engineering services.