- (1.) THE Petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 260 (Tax) of 2004 challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 29 -9 -2003 [2004 (163) E.L.T. 79 (Tribunal)]. Subsequently, against the same order of the Tribunal an appeal, Central Excise (Defective) No. 135 of 2004, has been filed under Section of the Central Excise Act (the Act). The certified copy of the order of the Tribunal has been filed along with the writ petition and a request has been made for dispensing with the requirement of filing of certified copy of the order in appeal. The request is accepted and filing of certified copy of the Tribunal's order in appeal is dispensed with.
(2.) SINCE the Petitioner has filed appeal against the same order of the Tribunal, the Petitioner is not pressing the writ petition and is, accordingly, dismissed. The appeal under Section of the Act has been filed against the order dated 29 -9 -2003 raising the following questions: (i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in deciding the issue of limitation against the Petitioners when the circumstances of the case does not fulfill the ingredients for invoking the extended period of limitation contemplated Under Section of the Central excise Act 1944? (ii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in deciding the issue of limitation when the same was dependent on the use of brand name and eligibility of availment of S.S.I. Exemption? (iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in deciding the issue of limitation, when the entire demand raised needs recalculation resulting in complete waiver of the same?
(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Appellant was manufacturing animal feed supplements and has also started manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines in the name of Caton, Catcough and Utcrolon. The animal feed supplements was exempted from Excise Duty. However, no Excise Duty has been paid on Caton, Catcough and Utcrolon, which were Ayurvedic medicines.;