TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where the Original Authority will give them full opportunity to explain their case and also take into account the statutory provisions as well as the case laws cited by the appellant. The dispute of classification with respect to all the four products to the Original Adjudicating Authority is remanded to reconsider the same. The Adjudicating Authority shall also provide crossexamination of the Chemical Examiner, if prayed by the Appellants. Further, after hearing the appellants and examining the evidences produced, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law for the normal period. Penalties et aside - the Appeal is allowed in part and remanded in part. - HON'BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY ( JUDICIAL ) And HO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment, the appellants are submitting that it is more specifically covered under the heading 3101. In so far as the classification of Single Micronutrient under heading 2833/2840 of CETA is concerned, their main argument is that they are not manufacturing the products as they are only procuring the same in bulk and clearing the same in small packets and that they had entertained a bonafide belief that they were not liable to Central Excise duty, whereas, the department, relying on Chapter Note 9 of Chapter 28, considered this as a process of manufacture. The Appellants have also contested the classification of Multi-micronutrients/Micronutrients mixture under heading 3824 9090, relying on Section and Chapter notes as per General Rules for I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the judgement of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dharti Agro Chemicals Pvt Ltd vs CCE, Nagpur-II, UOI, Ministry of Finance [2018 (9) TMI 311 (Bombay High Court)], which quashed the said Circular dt.06.04.2016 on the grounds that the said Circular travelled beyond the scope of authority under Sec 37B. 8. In respect of penalty on Mr. K. Venkat Reddy, Director of appellant company, learned Advocate for the appellants submit that he was under bonafide belief that the products manufactured by them were Bio-fertilizers and that is why they did not take Central Excise registration or paid any duty and therefore, in the absence of any malafide for non-payment of duty, the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 is not warranted. 9. The Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
