9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormulations out of concentrate pesticides and/or manufacture of technical grade pesticides, therefore, they are being taken up for consideration together : Sl No. Appeal No. Order impugned & dated Amount of duty Rs. Amount of Penalty Rs. Period (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1. E/1068 to E/1070/98 7/97 12-11-1987 CCE 22,64,028 2,39,010 (Sec. 11AC) 4 lacs [9 (2) & 173Q] 1-4-1995 to 22-7-1996 2. E/1341 to E/1344/98 6/97 28-11-1992 CCE 1,31,88,737 32,15,782 (Sec. 11AC) 50 lacs [9(2) & 173Q] 1-4-1995 to 22-7-1996 3. E/V-1801/ 98 8/98 15-5-1998 CCE(A) 4,54,434 Nil 29-3-1995 to 31-3-1995 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 4. E/2592/98 3/98 / 8-6-1998 CCE 2,59,24,554 2,59,24,554 (11AC), 5 la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otices were issued in this matter inasmuch as consequent to the issue of Circular by the CBEC No. 40/2/95, dated 27-7-1995, as reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. T 77, it had held that such formulations would be amounting to manufacture and the resultant products would be classifiable under 38.08 of the CET. The learned Counsel further submits that this Circular was struck down as null and void by two Hon'ble High Courts in the following decisions : (a) Indichem v. U.O.I. reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 35 (Guj). (b) Kissan Chemicals v. U.O.I. reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 648 (Del.). Both the High Courts had held that the CBEC had no legal authority to issue the Circular on this matter which was in contradiction with the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period before introduction of the said Note 2. 4. With respect to appeals at Serial Nos. 4 to 7, the period in question is commencing after introduction of the said note on 23-7-1996, as noted in the table above. 5. Heard Shri Chidananda Rao, learned Consultant for appeals at Serial Nos. 4 & 5 above, Shri P.C. Anand, Chartered Accountant for appeal at Serial No. 6 above and Shri Mir Fazal Hussain, learned Consultant for appeal at Serial No. 7 above. 6. All these learned Consultants /Chartered Accountant submit that the classification of the technical grade pesticides manufactured by these appellants has raised the dispute as to whether it would be correctly falling under Chapter 28 or 29 as Advocated by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, they do concede that no stay has been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court so far. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and the records of the case. We find that so far as appeals at serial numbers 1 to 3 are concerned, the issue involves formulations by diluting with solvents and addition of other chemicals like stabilising and dispersing agents, innert carriers and packing thereon would not amount to manufacture under the Act in view of the decision in the case of Markfed (supra) as the said decision has acquired finality, the Revenue having not filed any appeal challenging the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This decision has also been endorsed by the High Courts of Gujarat and Delhi in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
