2013 (10) TMI 1587

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cial) And Hon'ble Mr. Manmohan Singh, Member (Technical) Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate for the Appellants Ms. Shweta Bector, DR for the Respondent Per Archana Wadhwa All the matters are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) though there are separate order in originals. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that dispute....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ently, the refund claim were being filed by them in terms of said notification and the same were filed by them. At the time of disposal of refund claim, the jurisdictional Central Excise officer entertained a view that the appellants product are not correctly classifiable under tariff heading 3808 9340, but the same are correctly classifiable as fertilizer as under Chapter heading 31.01 which attr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ariff entry was not before the original adjudicating authority and he has no power to remand, he has no option but to agree with the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, he rejected the appeals. Hence the present appeals along with stay petitions. 4. We find that total self credit taken by the appellant in all these appeals is to the tune of 4,18,80,002/-. The said amount is in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... there is no difference under rate of duty applicable to plant growth regulator or insecticides except the quantum of abatement which is 25% in plant growth regular and 30% in insecticides. 6. However, both sides agree that third contending entry of the insecticides was not the subject matter of the proceedings before the original adjudicating authority and as such, neither the appellant nor th....