2009 (6) TMI 864

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent. [Order]. The impugned order affirmed an order of the original authority. After due process of law, the original authority had found that the appellants M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd. had manufactured and cleared a product called abda , a plant vitalizer falling under Chapter Sub-heading 3808 treating it as fertilizer of CSH 3101.0099. By wrongly classifying the plant vitalizer as fert .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... barred by limitation. The authorities had drawn a sample of the product and got it tested by the Regional Centre of Organic Farming, Bangalore. As per the test report, the product passed test of Fertilizer Control Order, 2006 and as per the test report abda was organic manure entitled to full exemption. The original authority had relied on Fertiliser Control Order to decide that the subject produc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the appellants though intimated the classification of abda followed by them vide their letter dated 1-8-2005, they had not intimated the details of clearance of the impugned goods made by them in the ERl returns filed by them. Therefore, the plea of limitation was not justified. As regards the reliance on Fertilizer Control Order he submits that the test result was on the basis of the Fertilizer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X