TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 901
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... They claimed it's clearance as fertilisers under chapter 31 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 1.1 On the basis of search conducted in their factory premises, revenue officials came to know that the appellant has started manufacturing new soil conditioner under brand name "Sikko Fast" and clearing the same as fertilisers by evading Central Excise duty. The department therefore collected clearance data of "Sikko Fast" from the appellant for the period from July, 2014 to June 2017. Alongwith data, appellant also submitted literature of "Sikko fast" showing the product as granulated soil conditioner. The department took sample of Sikko Fast and sent to CRCL, Vadodara for testing which vide their letter dated 16.02.2017, submitted the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2016 and rejected the party's appeal. Aggrieved with this order, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. 2. In their appeal, appellant took the following grounds:- * The Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of the lower authority by relying on note 6 of chapter 31 which states that Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium must be essential component for product to be classified as "other fertilisers" under CTH 3105 whereas, in their case, test report shows presence of 1.1% Nitrogen and 2.1% Potassium which being very low, can not be considered as an essential constituent. The decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is legally not sustainable as note 6 of Chapter 31 speaks of essential constituent and not of dominat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not sent to other government laboratories for complete testing. * Larger period of limitation is not invokable in their case in view of the decision of CESTAT Chennai in the case of Madras Cement Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV as reported at 2018 (362) ELT 822 which held that in cases of disputes arising out of a difference in interpretation vis-à-vis classification of the new product, there cannot be allegation that appellant had evaded duty by way fraud or misinterpretation or mis-statement or suppression of fact. For the same reason, they also challenge imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. They rely on the decision of CESTAT Mumbai in the case of JCB India Ltd reported at 2014 (312) ELT 593. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i. -Bang.) which has attained finality as the department's appeal against this order has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported at 2025 (34) Centax 111 (SC). Learned Counsel further argues that in their own case, in respect of other products such as Sikko Bio Star, Sikko Gold, Sikko Power, Vakil 3D, etc, Ahmedabad Tribunal vide final order No. A/12447-12450/2021 dated 21.10.2021 has remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh in the light of decision in the case of Narmada Bio Chem Ltd and Ors. Vs. CCE & ST Vadodara reported at 2019 (7) TMI 459 CESTAT Ahmedabad which was not earlier available to the Adjudicating Authority wherein the issue of soil conditioner has also been dealt with in detail. He pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t elsewhere specified or included. He thus, justifies classification of "Sikko Fast" under CTH 38249090 and confirmation of central excise duty demand along with interest and penalty as adjudged by the Appellate Commissioner and prays for dismissing the party's appeal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the appellant has contested impugned order both on merit as well as on limitation. The order of Commissioner (Appeals) discusses merit of the case to justify redetermination of classification of the product under chapter 38 instead of CTH 3105 claimed by the appellant. This order is however silent on invocation of extended period in this case to demand duty. We find that the show cause notice itself mentions that the fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of some of their other products such as Best Agri Product (BAP), Sikko Bio Star, Sikko Gold, Sikko Power, Vakil-3D, etc. has also been remanded to the lower authority for examining the issue in the light of Tribunal's decision in the case of Narmada Bio-chem Pvt Ltd (cited supra). We therefore deem it fit to remit this matter also to the adjudicating authority with the following directions:- a) Examine essentiality of queries at Sr. No. 3&4 of the test memo for determining classification of the goods, which have not been replied to, by CRCL, Vadodara? b) Whether facts in the present case are same/similar to the products whose classification has been considered by this tribunal vide final order No. A/12447-12450/2021 dat....