2005 (5) TMI 412 - AT - Central Excise

Classification dispute: 'Amigen R' vs. 'Amigen Conc. 50' under Heading 3809. Tribunal remands for fresh testing.

Classification dispute arose over 'Amigen R' and 'Amigen Conc. 50'. Initially classified under Heading 3809.00, disputed by Revenue under Note 3(e) of ... Textile Dye Fixing Agent - ‘Amigen R’ and ‘Amigen Conc. 50’ - Classification of Issues:1. Classification dispute regarding 'Amigen R' and 'Amigen Conc. 50'.2. Demand confirmation due to classification under Chapter Heading 3909.40.Classification Dispute:The case involved a classification dispute regarding 'Amigen R' and 'Amigen Conc. 50'. The adjudicating authority initially accepted the classification under Heading 3809.00 based on a test report. However, the Revenue challenged this decision with a different test report, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower appellate authority sided with the Revenue, citing a test report that classified the products under Note 3(e) of Chapter 39. The appellant argued that the products were not pre-polymers under Chapter 39, relying on HSN explanatory notes and Note 3(c) of Chapter 39. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the test report and the lack of basis for classification under Note 3(e). They ordered fresh samples to be tested, permitting cross-examination of the chemical examiner if needed, and remanded the case for a fresh decision.Legal Precedent and Remand:The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the matter was settled by a previous order, emphasizing the specific categories under the current tariff. They highlighted the difference in characteristics between the products in the present case and the product in the previous case. The Tribunal allowed the appellants to raise all pleas, including that of limitation. Ultimately, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed by way of remand for further examination based on the provided guidelines.This detailed analysis of the legal judgment addresses the classification dispute, the discrepancies in the test reports, the reliance on legal precedents, and the decision to remand the case for a fresh determination.