1995 (8) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tem 65 of CET. However, after clearance of the goods the importers filed an application for refund alongwith a copy of their letter dated 30-11-1983 claiming that the additional duty shall be under Item 68 of CET and not 65 of CET. The Assistant Collector (Refunds) rejected the above claim for assessment and issued the order in original No. S/6-C-5564/83 R, dated 4-6-1984. Being aggrieved by the above order the importers filed an appeal with the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who in turn allowed the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. 2.  Shri J.P. Singh, learned Departmental Representative contended that Collector (Appeals) was wrong in holding that the goods imported are not accelerators under Item 65 CET. The lear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Assistant Collector's decision has been taken without any technical opinion. The goods imported answer the definition of the term 'insecticide' in the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the learned Counsel referred to the various grounds taken by Collector (Appeals) for his consideration, including ratio of aTribunal decision in the case of Hico Products v. Collector of Central Excise - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2483. The learned Counsel also referred to the Suppliers product literature which shows that the goods are meant for plant protection and as fungicide. The learned Counsel argued that where the material has various uses, it is imperative to determine end-use, and that commercial understanding is important for classification purposes for which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and the latter Item 68 is only a residuary one". This finding has been given without dealing with the various contentions of the appellants in support of their claim for refund on the ground that the goods as insecticides are classifiable under Item 68 CET. The Collector (Appeals) on the other hand has in the impugned order noted that the goods in question is specified as an insecticide as per definition in the Insecticides Act, 1968. Also that for purposes of basic customs duty the goods have been classified under Heading 29.01/45 (12) which would CTA support the claim that the goods are insecticides. The Collector (Appeals) has also followed the decision of the Tribunal in Hico Products v. Collector of Central Excise - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 24....