TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llants are claiming the classification of said product under sub heading 2302.00, the Department disputed the same and contended that it is correctly classifiable under heading 2941.30. The Department confirmed the demands of Rs. 20,33,890.86/- vide O-I-O No. 204-209/DC/D/2001 dt. 28.02.2001. This O-I-O covered the following show cause notices:- Sr. No. SCNs No. Date Period Amount (Rs.) 1. V/17/CL/PL/33/88/7827 19.07.91 3/92-8/92 Nil 2. V(29)3/114/D/92 04.01.93 -DO- 2,27,377/- 3. V(29)3/37/93/3306 08.04.93 3/90-2/92 10,11,690.58/- 4. V(29)3/12/D/93/3455 23.04.93 11/92-12/92 1,12,529.28/- 5. V/17/PFIZER/CL/20/96 28.12.99 w.e.f. 11/99 Nil 6. CE-20/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4,77,189/- 2. V(29)3/D/34/2K1/11757-58 20.11.2K1 11/2K-05/2K1 9,27,579/- Aggrieved by the aforesaid O-I-Os the party filed appeals with the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeals of the party vide O-I-A No. 491/CE/Chd/03 dt. 24.06.2003 (pertaining to O-I-O No. 204-09/DC/D/2001) and 296-97/CE/Chd/04 dt. 31.03.04 (Pertaining to O-I-O No. 108-109/DC/D/2002) respectively. Aggrieved by the above orders of the Commissioner (A), the party again filed an appeal with CESTAT who vide Final Order No. 684-86/04-NB-CE and S/461-62/04 dt. 30.09.2004 remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority with the directions to pass a fresh order after allowing cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner. Pursuant to the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot final product, if is not excluded from 29.41. He also referred to the spot verification done by the first adjudicating authority Sh. Malkiat Singh who concluded that manufacturing process for all the products in appellant's factory was same. He also argued that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in the observing that test of the chemical examiner is vague and based on the assumptions and presumptions. He referred to the notes written by the chemical examiner indicating various tests conducted to arrive at the conclusion. He argued that the judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Tetraon Chemie (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2001 (138) ELT 414 (Tri. LB) was clearly distinguishable as the goods TMQ are different. He furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "I also gone through the test report of the Chemical Examiner and the results of the cross-examination in the form of questionnaires and answers thereto. Besides vague and indefinite answers, the Chemical Examiner admitted that the test residue on ignition or loss on drying was not conducted. She could not answer in affirmative whether there was any inorganic substance in the product or not. Even the test report is vague in as much as it is not specify the exact nature of the contents of the sample. On one hand it says that the sample is in the form of brown coloured powder having the characteristics of organic compound and the note appended to it says that it may be considered as a derivative of tetracycline. The entire cross-examinati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s background, we find force in the argument of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the TMQ, being in process material is used as an additive to original feed supplement and hence classifying the same as antibiotic or derivative or salts of the same was not correct. In this context, the following findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are very relevant:- "The adjudicating authority admits that the product TMQ is an in-process material which is used as a pre-mix in the manufacture of TM 100 i.e. feed supplement. He has not disputed that the product is in crude form and is not a pure antibiotic. In its findings he has admitted while trying to distinguish the case of Tetragon Chemie that the product TMQ cleared from Chandigarh is u....