ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved with Order-in-Appeal No. 7/2004 CE dated 27.2.2004 by which the Commissioner has upheld the Order-in-Original No. 6/2001 dated 10.7.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner holding the following items to be classifiable under Chapter Sub-Heading No. 2936 of CET but the assesses claim the classification of these items to be under CHSH No. 3003.10. The items are (i) Stronic (ii) Neuronat (iii) Hivit (iv) Avitol (v) Boroplex and (vi) Vitamin B Complex.
2. The learned Counsel submits that this Bench had an occasion to consider the classification of this very items under same heading in assessee’s own case . The learned Counsel submits that an earlier order rendered in the case of Natco Parentrals Ltd. v. CCE taken in appeal before the Apex Court by Revenue as reported in 2004 (168) ELT A166 (SC), wherein the apex court remanded the matter to the Tribunal and the Tribunal on denovo has decided the issue in assessee’s favour as . He also relies on the ratio of the following ruling.
(i) CCE, Chennai v. American Remedies Ltd. .
(ii) CCE, Bangalore v. Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd. .
(iii) CCE, Bangalore v. Juggat Pharma Ltd. .
(iv) Herbal Products v. CCE, Calicut 2002 (146) ELT A128 affirmed by Supreme Court in 2004 (164) ELT A 128.
(v) Naturalle Health Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad 2003 (153) ELT 257.
(vi) BPL Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara .
(vii) CCE, Calicut v. Sharma Chemical Works .
He submits that the issue is concluded in assessee’s favour and hence, there is no merit in the Revenue’s appeal.
3. The matter had been adjourned for today to enable the JCDR to examine the issue in the light of the cited judgments. The learned JCDR in his usual fairness agreed with the ratio of the cited judgments are in favour of the assessee.
4. On a careful consideration, we notice that the issue is decided in assessee’s faovur for classifying the items in terms of the cited sub-heading of CET. The large catena of judgments which includes Apex Court judgments are in assessee’s favour, therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)