9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in manufacture of excisable goods, namely, Potassium Nitrate, Potassium Sulphate, Mono Potassium Phosphate and Mono Ammonium Phosphate, which were classified under Chapter 28 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 by the appellant prior to May, 2007. Subsequently, they claimed classification of the said product under Chapter 31 as Fertilizer and claimed exemption against Entry No. 63 of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. On adjudication, the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 1-5-2008 classified the product Potassium Sulphate under Chapter sub-heading 3104 30 00 and Mono Ammonium Phosphate under chapter sub-heading 3105 40 00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at subject goods were not having more than one use, hence the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) considering the products as fertilizers is erroneous and to be set aside. 4. Learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) besides analyzing the test result, also considered various other aspects namely, use of the products in question, classification of similar goods imported and the letter of RCF relating to the use of the said products. Also, in the report submitted by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner dated 12-8-2010 as per the direction of Learned Commissioner (Appeals), it has been reported that the products in question were reported to merit classification under Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment, we do not understand as to why department has not independently drew samples before and during issue of periodical demand notices of the respondent from time to time. In absence of any contrary test report, we do not find merit in not accepting the test report of the Fertilizer Testing Laboratory, Pune Govt. of Maharashtra that products in question are fertilizers. Also, we find that the Jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner's report has not disputed the process of manufacture, its use, but on the contrary, reported that it merits classification as fertilizers. Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Accordingly, the Revenue's appeals are dismissed being d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
