Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2004 (1) TMI 469

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d valorem duty, while Department took the view that it is classifiable under 3808.90 attracting duty at the rate of 18%. The original authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the Department and duty demand of Rs. 1,96,019/- was confirmed. A penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was also imposed. Relevant entries read as follows : 38.08 Insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, herbicides, anti-sprouting products and plant growth regulators, disinfectants and similar products, put up in forms or packings for retail sale or as preparations or articles (for example, sulphur-treated bands, wicks and candles, and fly-papers). 3808.10 Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, Weedicides and pestic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Director, Agriculture Licensing Office under the Insecticides Act after inspection of the facilities and all required procedures. The product is manufactured under Certificate of Registration obtained under Insecticides Act. This certificate has been issued by the Secretary, Central Insecticides Board under Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. The appellant submits that it is only insecticides, herbicides and fungicides that are covered under Insecticides Act and not disinfectant. Since there is no definition of the term insecticide or disinfectant in the Central Excise Tariff, one has to go by the common parlance meaning of the product. This product is bought and sold as insecticide in the market. In support of the above, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rand Chemical Works v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 730. 5. Appellants further contended that imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q in the present case is totally untenable. 6. We heard learned Departmental Representative who supported the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. We have gone through the licence issued to the appellant by Plant Protection Section of the Department of Agriculture, U.P. under the Insecticides Act. Under the schedule of insecticides licence for manufacture the product in question is shown as Item No. 56. Certificate of Registration of insecticides granted to the appellant under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 contains details of the use of the product. This would also show .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates