Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S Ranadey Micronutrients P. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. these two appeals arise out of the same order of the commissioner (appeals) in which he had disposed of the appeals filed by the two respondents in this case.2. we have heard shri a.k. jain, jdr for the revenue. we have also heard shri a. hidayatulla, senior counsel appearing along with shri m.p. baxi, shri a.sheerazee and ms. s.kher, advocates.3. the respondent assessees manufactured macronutrients. the classification of these products was the basis of a show cause notice issued on 6.11.1989. the collector of central excise passed orders on 6.11.1990 confirming classification under sub-heading 3808.90 and confirming the resultant differential duty. the tribunal upheld this order on classification, but restricted the demand on limitation. the assessees then filed appeals. the supreme court in their judgment later reported in 1996(87) elt 19 held that macronutrients were classifiable under heading 3105.4. subsequent to the decision by the collector of central excise 10 show cause notices for later period were issued where the total demand was of rs.85,94,169.80. the assistant collector held that subsequent to november, 1990 the macronutrients contained nitrogen phosphorous and potassium which qualified for classification under heading 31.05 but for the period earlier thereto, the classification warranted was under sub-heading 3808.90. he confirmed the duty to the extent of rs.17,52,624.63 and also imposed a penalty of rs.17,52,624.63 and also imposed a penalty of rs.5,000/- on the assessee. the commissioner (appeals) set aside the order and held that the classification claimed by the assessee was correct. the present appeals from the revenue are against this order.5. on hearing both sides, we find that the issue squarely covered by the supreme court's order cited supra. in that order the product was classified under heading 3105 even i n the absence of nitrogen phosphorous and potassium. in the absence of any other claims in the appeal memorandum, we uphold the impugned orders and dismiss the appeals from the revenue.

Judgment:
1. These two appeals arise out of the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in which he had disposed of the appeals filed by the two respondents in this case.

2. We have heard Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the Revenue. We have also heard Shri A. Hidayatulla, senior counsel appearing along with Shri M.P. Baxi, Shri A.Sheerazee and Ms. S.Kher, advocates.

3. The respondent assessees manufactured macronutrients. The classification of these products was the basis of a show cause notice issued on 6.11.1989. The Collector of Central Excise passed orders on 6.11.1990 confirming classification under sub-heading 3808.90 and confirming the resultant differential duty. The Tribunal upheld this order on classification, but restricted the demand on limitation. The assessees then filed appeals. The Supreme Court in their judgment later reported in 1996(87) ELT 19 held that macronutrients were classifiable under heading 3105.

4. Subsequent to the decision by the Collector of Central Excise 10 show cause notices for later period were issued where the total demand was of Rs.85,94,169.80. The Assistant Collector held that subsequent to November, 1990 the macronutrients contained nitrogen phosphorous and potassium which qualified for classification under heading 31.05 but for the period earlier thereto, the classification warranted was under sub-heading 3808.90. He confirmed the duty to the extent of Rs.17,52,624.63 and also imposed a penalty of Rs.17,52,624.63 and also imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000/- on the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order and held that the classification claimed by the assessee was correct. The present appeals from the Revenue are against this order.

5. On hearing both sides, we find that the issue squarely covered by the Supreme Court's order cited supra. In that order the product was classified under heading 3105 even i n the absence of nitrogen phosphorous and potassium. In the absence of any other claims in the appeal memorandum, we uphold the impugned orders and dismiss the appeals from the Revenue.