9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner for de novo decision - E/1857/2011 - A/440/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 12-3-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sparsh Bhargava, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Verma, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The dispute in the present appeal relates to classification of the product Bio-Control Agents being manufactured by the appellant whereas they have claimed the classification of the same under Heading No. 30029030 based upon the precedent decision, the Commissioner vide impugned order has classified the said product under Heading No. 38.089910. 2. After hearing both the sides, duly represented by Shri Sparash Bhargava ld. Advocate and S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09 (235) E.L.T. 183 (Tribunal.-Chennai). It stands held in the said decision that heading no. 3002 includes cultures of micro-organisms for technical purposes like auditing plant growth. Microbes under heading no. 3002 does not cover fertilizers but also those that aid plants growth and treat disease in plants. It was accordingly held by the Tribunal that under Heading No. 3808 covers insecticides and fungicides and not cultures of microbes as basis. 4. The Adjudicating Authority, without referring to the above decision of the Tribunal, held against the assessee and confirmed the demand. Hence, the present appeal. 5. The appellant s grievance is that the said two decisions cover the disputed issue and should have been followed by the Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with each and every plea raised by an assessee and specifically the decisions, which apparently covers this issue. In its fairness even if the adjudicating authority was of the view that the relied upon decision deal with a different products or appellant s product is not covered by the said decisions, he was within his rights to distinguish the same, instead of a convenient pass over or skip. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order, remand the matter to the Commissioner for de novo decision, in the light of the two precedent decisions of the Tribunal referred supra. We make it clear that the remand is being made only on the above ground and we have otherwise not expressed any opinion on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
