Case Law Details
KPR Fertilizers Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad)
CESTAT Hyderabad held that classifying micronutrients manufactured by the appellant, as plant growth regulators, under Chapter heading 38089304 instead of Chapter heading 3105 is unsustainable
Facts-
The appellant manufactures micronutrients for plants and has classified them under Chapter heading 3105 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A show cause notice dated 03.2011 was issued to the appellant covering the period 2007-08 to 20010-11 proposing to classify the micronutrients manufactured by the appellant as plant growth regulators under Chapter heading 38089304 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and consequently recover the differential duty of Rs.1,23,49,088/- under proviso to section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act along with interest under section 11AB. It was further proposed to impose a penalty on them under section 11AC and under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant contested the proposal before the Commissioner both on merits and on limitation. After following due process, learned Commissioner has passed the impugned order. Hence, this appeal.
Conclusion-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
