1996 (10) TMI 210 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to Order-in-Original for excise duty and penalty imposition.
2. Classification of product under Chapter sub-heading 3808.10 vs. 3808.90.
3. Entitlement for exemption under Notification No. 234/82.
4. Time-bar on Show Cause Notice issuance.
5. Allegations of suppression of information by the appellants.
6. Review of classification list by the Collector.
7. Classification of the product as a plant growth regulator or pesticide.

Analysis:
1. The appellants contested the Order-in-Original directing payment of excise duty and imposing a penalty. They classified their product as a pesticide under Chapter sub-heading 3808.10 but faced a Show Cause Notice for mis-declaration and mis-classification, alleging it should be under 3808.90 instead.

2. The Additional Collector ruled that the product should be classified under 3808.90 and not 3808.10. The appellants argued their product was a pesticide and belonged to the general group of pesticides, seeking exemption under Notification No. 234/82, which the Collector denied due to alleged suppression of information.

3. The appellants challenged the timeliness of the Show Cause Notice issued in 1989, claiming it related to a period starting in 1983. They maintained they had disclosed manufacturing processes and filed classification lists and RT-12 returns regularly, denying any suppression of information.

4. The Tribunal found the Show Cause Notice from 1989 demanding duty from 1983 was not sustainable. It noted that before 1986, there was no specific classification for insecticides/pesticides, and the appellants' classification under T.I. 68 was approved, allowing benefits under Notification No. 234/82.

5. Regarding the classification dispute, the Tribunal referenced precedents to determine that a product with a lower percentage of pest-destroying chemicals cannot be classified as a pesticide. It cited cases where plant growth regulators were not considered pesticides or insecticides.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Additional Collector's order, finding no errors warranting modification. It rejected the appeal, concluding that the product in question did not qualify as a pesticide or insecticide and should be classified under a different heading.