9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (6) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Chapter Heading 23.02 (Preparation of a kind used in animal feeding including dog and cat food). The Department on the other hand, contends that it is classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3823.00 (Prepared binders for foundary moulds or cores : chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries (including those consisting of mixtures of natural products), not elsewhere specified or included; residual products of the chemical or allied industries, not elsewhere specified or included.) Ld. Counsel for the appellants Shri J.R. Cama submitted in response to a query from the Bench that the Bank guarantees executed by the appellants pursuant to the stay order given by the Tribunal earlier have been updated and is now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt dated 25-10-1996 obtained by the Range Superintendent which fully supports the appellant s claim that their product would fall under sub-heading 23.09. He also derives support from the HSN. Ld. Counsel then drew attention to the recent Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in Tetragon Chemie (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1999 (30) R.L.T. 366 in which the description of preparations under Heading 23.09 of HSN and the clarification given by the Board by Circular No. 1/90 dated 1-1-1990 has been relied upon. Further, by Board Circular dated 26-3-1996, earlier Circular No. 1/90 had been further explained stating that Explanatory Notes under Heading 23.09 of HSN indicated that pre-mixes contained in addition to the active substance, vitamins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the submissions mentioned above. We notice that two pieces of evidence presently brought to our notice by the appellant s Counsel, namely, letter dated August 8, 1985 and the enclosure explaining the manufacturing process has not been discussed in the orders passed by the authorities below. It is not clear from the record, whether the said letter had been brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority. Further, the Chemical Examiner s report dated 25-10-1996 also appears to be a report given by the Chemical Examiner after a visit to the factory sometime in 1996. It does not refer to any samples that were taken during the period under dispute. The Chemical Examiner s report is based apparently on the examination of samples taken some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
