9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMI 475 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] and the above order is almost identical to the facts of the present case. In the order of the Ahmedabad Bench i.e., M/S MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD VERSUS C.C.E. -AHMEDABAD-II [ 2019 (9) TMI 278 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] relied upon by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner, the Ld. Bench has distinguished the order in M/s. CIBA India Ltd., but however, it is found that at the threshold that the re-classification attempted by the original authority deserves to be set aside since what was proposed in the Show Cause Notice was under a different CTH, but what was confirmed in the Order-in-Original is under a totally different CTH. This approach of the original authority is not proper and correct since, very clearly, the principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. Nos. 1145 1146/2013 dated 26.08.2013 4. C/42419/2013 -- 3. It is submitted by both the sides that a common issue is involved in all these appeals and hence, for convenience, all the appeals were taken up for common disposal. 4.1 Brief facts which are relevant are that the assessee-respondent had filed Bill-of-Entry for clearance of chelated micronutrient fertilizers viz. Dissolvine E-FE-13(FE-EDTA), Rexoline CXK(EDTA-MIX), Dissolvine F-ZN-15(ZN-EDTA) and Dissolvine E-CA-10(CA-EDTA), classifying the same under CTH 3105 9090, which attracted 5% Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and total exemption from Counter-vailing Duty (CVD) and Spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order that Customs Appeal No. 42059 of 2013 has been filed by the Revenue before this forum. 5. Similar demands raised against the assessee vide other Orders-in-Original/Bills-of-Entry were also set aside by the first appellate authority vide various Orders-in-Appeal, as indicated in the Table at paragraph 2 above, and against the same, the Revenue has preferred the Customs Appeal Nos. 42515, 42418 and 42419 of 2013 before this forum. 6.1 Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Ld. Assistant Commissioner appearing for the Revenue, seriously contended that the original authority had properly arrived at the classification, which should not have been disturbed by the first appellate authority. 6.2 He also took us through various paragraphs of the Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the view that the re-classification is unjustified. The very re-classification under CTH 2921 itself impliedly suggests that the original authority was satisfied that the impugned goods were not classifiable under CTH 2922, as proposed in the Show Cause Notice. 10. Further, in the impugned orders, the first appellate authority has relied on an order of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. CIBA India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2009 (237) E.L.T. 207 (Tri. Chennai)] and the above order is almost identical to the facts of the present case. In the order of the Ahmedabad Bench i.e., M/s. Meghmani Organics Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner, the Ld. Bench has distinguished the order in M/s. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
