2021 (11) TMI 513 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - Best Agri Product(BAP) - Sikko Biostar - Sikko Gold - Sikko Power - Vakil 3D - classifiable under chapter heading 3101/3105 as claimed by the appellant or under 3808 as held by the Adjudicating Authority? - HELD THAT - The issue involved in the present case is mix of facts and legal issue. In the case of M/S NARMADA BIO CHEM PVT. LTD., RAMESHBHAI PATEL DIRECTOR VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -VADODARA-I 2019 (7) TMI 459 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , this Tribunal has considered the test report and the composition of each product. Therefore, since the judgment of Narmada Biochem was not available the the lower authority this matter needs to be reconsidered taking into consideration, the view taken by this Tribunal in the case of Narmada Biochem Pvt. Ltd. also by verifying the facts of the present case vis-a-vis the facts of the Narmada Biochem Pvt. Ltd. case. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of products under different chapter headings, demand on limitation, dutiability of a specific product.

Classification of products: The main issue in this case is the classification of products such as Best Agri Product(BAP), Sikko Biostar, Sikko Gold, Sikko Power, and Vakil 3D under chapter heading 3101/3105 as claimed by the appellant or under 3808 as held by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant is not contesting the classification of other products like 'NPK' and 'Vasool' on merit but is contesting the demand on limitation. Another issue is the dutiability of the product 'Black Surya.'

Arguments presented: The appellant's counsel argued extensively, relying heavily on a previous Tribunal decision regarding the classification of similar products as fertilizers. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Decision and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the impugned order did not consider a relevant judgment regarding the classification of similar products as fertilizers. Given the mix of facts and legal issues involved, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh order. The Tribunal emphasized the need to reconsider the case in light of the previous judgment and verify the facts of the present case against those of the previous case. The Tribunal refrained from expressing any view on the matter and kept all issues open for further consideration.

Conclusion: The Tribunal remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh order, highlighting the importance of considering the previous judgment and verifying the facts of the present case. The decision was pronounced in open court on 21.10.2021.