9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (9) TMI 493 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Classification dispute regarding products Phosphoryl 'A' and Phosphoryl 'B' - Whether classified as Di-Calcium Phosphate (DCP) under Heading 28.35 or as animal feed supplements under Heading 23.02. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI involved a classification dispute concerning the products Phosphoryl 'A' and Phosphoryl 'B'. The main issue was whether these products, manufactured by the assessee, should be classified as Di-Calcium Phosphate (DCP) under Heading 28.35 as claimed by the Revenue or as animal feed supplements under Heading 23.02 as claimed by the assessee. The original authority had initially classified the items under Heading 28.35, leading to a duty demand on the assessee based on a Board's Order dated 3-3-97. However, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) classified the goods as animal feed supplements under Heading 23.02 after considering various evidence, including an analytical report from the Tamil Nadu Veterinary Animal Sciences University. Upon hearing both sides, the Appellate Tribunal noted that the Board's Section 37B order dated 3-3-97, which was the basis for the Revenue's classification under Heading 28.35, had been withdrawn by Circular No. 675/66/2002-CX dated 15-11-2002. This circular highlighted that due to court decisions against the Board's order, the instructions in the 37B order were no longer valid. Consequently, the Tribunal found that since the Board's order was no longer applicable to the case, the grounds of the Revenue's appeal were untenable. As a result, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. In conclusion, the classification dispute regarding the products Phosphoryl 'A' and Phosphoryl 'B' was resolved in favor of the assessee, who claimed the goods should be classified as animal feed supplements under Heading 23.02. The withdrawal of the Board's Section 37B order, which was the basis for the Revenue's classification argument, led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI.
|
