TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Successful Appeal on Di-calcium Phosphate Classification under Central Excise Act</h1> <h3>SHREE PUSHKAR PETRO PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & S.T., KOLHAPUR</h3> SHREE PUSHKAR PETRO PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & S.T., KOLHAPUR - 2016 (340) E.L.T. 600 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved: Misclassification of product 'Di-calcium Phosphate' under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for the period June 2008 to October 2011.Analysis:1. The application was filed for an out-of-turn hearing of appeal No. E/87871/2013. After hearing both sides, it was found that the issue was covered by Notification No. 4/2016-C.E. (N.T.), dated 12-2-2016, issued by the Government of India. Consequently, the application for out-of-turn hearing was allowed, and the appeal itself was taken up for disposal.2. Upon examining the records, it was revealed that the appellant was accused of misclassifying the product 'Di-calcium Phosphate' for the period between June 2008 and October 2011. The allegation was based on the use of Rock Phosphate, Hydrated lime, and Lime Stone powder, which were claimed not to fall under the category of 'Animal Feed Grade.' However, it was correctly pointed out that the Government of India, through Notification No. 4/2016-C.E. (N.T.), dated 12-2-2006, had exempted Central Excise duty on such goods. The notification stated that no duty was payable on Di-Calcium Phosphate (animal feed grade) of rock phosphate origin during the specified period due to prevailing practices.3. Based on the notification's provisions, it was concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief that may be applicable. The decision was made considering the exemption granted by the Government of India and the prevailing practices regarding the levy of excise duty on the specific product in question.4. The judgment was delivered by the members of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, Shri M.V. Ravindran, and Devender Singh. The legal representatives involved in the case were Shri Anil Balani, Advocate, representing the Appellant, and Shri V.K. Agarwal, Addl. Commissioner, AR, representing the Respondent. The order was dictated in court, providing a clear and definitive resolution to the issue of misclassification of the product 'Di-calcium Phosphate' under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
TaxTMI 