9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 1-3-1986. The department took the view that the goods did not satisfy the conditions for classification under Chapter 31 of the CETA Schedule. They issued a show-cause notice to the party proposing to classify the item under Heading 38.23 as residual product of chemical or allied industries . This proposal was contested. The adjudicating authority held that the product was classifiable under Heading 38.23 (SH 3823.00) till 28-2-1997 and under SH 3824.90 from 1-3-1997. This decision was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), who accepted the claim of the party for classifying the goods under Heading 31.05 and for exemption under the aforesaid Notification. Hence the present appeal of the Revenue. 2. The rival entries are given below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where two products viz. Phosphoryl (A) and Phosphoryl (B) are manufactured. The residual products (effluents) from both the plants are drained into the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) where certain chemicals are added and the heavier solid particles resulting from this treatment are allowed to settle. After removing the supernatant liquid, the solids are transferred to the sludge filter unit. The filtered solids are collectively called Industrial Sludge . According to the appellant, this product is classifiable as residual product of chemical industry , whereas the respondents would classify it as chemical fertilizer . Ld. DR and ld. Counsel have reiterated the respective positions. Ld. Counsel has also relied on certain test reports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the material period, only to customers who used it as a fertilizer. They have also produced test reports from governmental and semi-governmental agencies indicating that the product contains both Nitrogen and Phosphorus, two of the fertilizing elements mentioned in the description of the goods given under Heading 31.05. Apparently, the Revenue did not get any sample tested in their own chemical laboratory. The appellant has adduced no evidence to rebut the evidence produced by the respondents in support of their plea that Industrial Sludge manufactured by them during the material period contained Nitrogen and Phosphorus as fertilizing elements and were used by their customers only as fertilizers . In the circumstances, we have t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
