2017 (5) TMI 1186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. Rinki Arora, Advocate - for the appellant. Shri H.C. Saini, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran :- These two appeals are on the same issue and hence, they are taken up together. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Magnesium Sulphate. The dispute in the present appeals relates to correct classification of the product under Cent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s or potassium. The product is nothing but chemical compound which is correctly classified under Chapter 28 as in organic chemical compound. 2. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. The impugned order relied on Note 6 of Chapter 31 which states as below :- "For the purpose of heading 3105, the term "other fertilizers" applies only to products of a kind used as fertiliz....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of under Chapter 31 as fertilizers for the purposes of Central Excise Tariff. For classification under Chapter 31, at least one of the elements, mainly nitrogen, phosphorous or potassium should be an essential component of the fertilizer as per note 6 of Chapter 31. It was further clarified there is no specific heading in the tariff for classification of micronutrient. However, where the micronutr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned Counsel also pleaded limitation. We note as recorded in the impugned order, the statutory ER-1 returns for the period April 2000 to March 2005 have not been filed by the appellant. It is only after the Department insisted during verification of details in May 2006, the appellants filed all the returns. The appellants claimed to have filed returns earlier. However, the lower Authorities re....