(1.) The issues involved in all these 15 appeals, arising out of Order -in -Original No. 16/98 dated 7.9.98 and 60 to 62/98 dated 24.11.98 are whether the goods manufactured by the Appellants No. 1 and 2 are Ayurvedic Medicaments classifiable under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or under Chapter 33 as Cosmetics, whether M/s. Shaherb Cosmetics are the related persons for the purpose of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, whether extended period of limitation is invocable for demanding Central Excise duty and whether penalties are imposable on all the Appellants.
(2.) 1 Shri Vivek Kohli, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Shahnaz Ayurvedics is a sole proprietorship concern of Ms. Shahnaz Hussain, having work premises at Okhla, New Delhi and NOIDA Phase II, U.P.; that they are engaged in the activity of manufacturing various Patent and Proprietory Ayurvedic Medicines since 1986; that from the time of initiation, their products were considered as P and P Ayurvedic Medicines by the Central Excise Department also and as such, they were not required to comply with Excise formalities; that, however, they were complying with the formalities stipulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act; that they have obtained a Drug Licence which has been renewed from time to time, that as of the present, the licence has been renewed till December 1999.
(3.) 1 The learned Advocate, further submitted that the extended period of limitation under the Proviso to Section 11 A(1) of the Central Excise Act is not invocable because the Department was aware of all the facts regarding sales made to hotels, exports made by them as ayurvedic products and the literature describing the products as cosmetics and beauty care products; that the Department had raised the issue of classification of their products for the first time in 1987 pursuant to a visit of the Central Excise officers to their factory premises on 5.9.87; that those proceedings culminated in the order No. 51/89 dated 29.8.1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, New Delhi, who had held that the products of the Appellants were, Ayurvedic Medicines and classifiable as such; that the Assistant Commissioner, MOD II, New Delhi had also held on 29.1.92 that the products of the Appellants are Ayurvedic Medicines; that in 1994, both the Assistant Commissioner, New Delhi and NOIDA, first provisionally approved the classification lists filed by them and after conducting the requisite enquiry and being satisfied of the claim of the Appellants, finally approved the same. He thus contended that in view of these facts, it cannot be held that the Department was not aware of the manufacturing activity or the true nature of their products nor can it be alleged that they had suppressed or concealed or mis -stated facts before the Department.