(Dipak Misra and N.V. Ramana, JJ.)
Deena Jee Sansthan and Others _____________________ Petitioner(s);
v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut _______________ Respondent.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)……CC 240/2016, decided on January 15, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Heard Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Delay condoned.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Agrawal that the High Court1 has committed grave error in answering the question No. 1 in the Central Excise Reference No. 8 of 2004 in favour of the revenue in an erroneous manner that the extended period of limitation would be applicable, inasmuch as the goods in question were excisable and removal thereof without paying duty was in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It is urged by him that the goods involved herein are, Dena Ji Brand Satritha shampoo, Dena Ji Brand Harbal shampoo and Dena Ji Brand Neem shampoo, being classifiable under chapter heading 3003.20, approved by this Court in Meghdoot Gramodyog Sewa Sansthan v. CCE2 and the said shampoos have been declared as ayurvedic medicines where excise duty is not payable. It is contended by him that when duty is not leviable, the issue of extendable period would not be applicable.
4. Issue notice.
5. There shall be interim stay of the impugned order, subject to the petitioner depositing fifty per cent of the demanded duty before the Department within eight weeks hence.
———
1 CCE v. D.J. Sansthan, 2015 SCC OnLine All 9139
2 (2005) 4 SCC 15 : (2004) 174 ELT 14
