9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he larger pack which were procured by the was cleared by manufacturers without discharging excise duty as non excisable and repacked products being same are also non excisable. This bonafide belief needs to be accepted. The demand within the limited period for this activity of repacking needs to be upheld alongwith interest - penalty set aside. Appeal disposed off. - E/27052, 27061/2013 E/22958, 22959/2014 - A/30480- 30483/2018 - Dated:- 31-1-2018 - Mr M V RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND Mr MADHU MOHAN DAMODAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Y. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for the appellant Commissioner/AR for the respondent 1. All these appeals are directed against Orders-in-Original No. 3/2013- (CE)-Commr, dt. 18.03.2013 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed the demands with interest and imposed penalties. 4. Ld. Counsel submits that as regards classification of micronutrient fertilisers, this Bench in the case of CCE, Hyderabad vs. Aries Agrovet Industries Limited [2017-TIOL-2635-CESTAT-Hyd] and Hindustan Agro Insecticides and others [2017-TIOL-3145-CESTAT-HYD] has held that classification of micronutrient fertilisers would fall under chapter heading 3105 and set aside the demands raised in those appeals. It is his submission that the same ratio will apply in the case in hand. It is his further submission that as regards the demands raised on repacking of single micronutrient, appellants were under bonafide belief that the said activity of repacking will not amount to manufacture and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the law. The chapter note 28 specifically indicates that repacking and re-receiving from larger packs to smaller packs would amount to manufacture. We do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order which upholds the activity of repacking as deemed manufactured. However, we find that the demands which have been confirmed are by invoking the extended period against appellant. In our considered view, appellant would have been entertaining a bonafide belief as to the repacking would not amount to manufacture and no excise duty is payable as the larger pack which were procured by the was cleared by manufacturers without discharging excise duty as non excisable and repacked products being same are also non excisable. This bonafide bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
