Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2026 (5) TMI 1612

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds imported by the assessee, namely mono potassium phosphate - fertiliser grade. At the time of import, the importer - assessee declared the classification of goods under CTH - - 31056000, which was assessed to BCD at 5%; CVD at 1% and 'Nil' SAD. The Revenue appears to have disputed the declared classification, which prompted the issuance of SCN dated 13.09.2012 wherein, the only reference that was made was to the clarification circular of CBEC No. 44/2001 - Customs dated 06.08.2001. It was thus proposed in the said SCN, to reject the incorrect classification declared by the importer and reclassify the impugned goods under CTH 28352400, thereby demand duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with applicable interest under sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the Revenue? 5. A perusal of order in original reveals that the only case of the Revenue to allege misclassification is the Board Circular No. 44/2001 Supra; interestingly, we find that in almost identical factual circumstances, Co-ordinate Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva vs. Solufeed Plant Product & Services Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (4) TMI 1346 - CESTAT Mumbai, which was heavily relied upon by the learned advocate during his arguments before us, has examined the scope and ambit of Circular 44/2001, as analysed by the very Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Vardhaman Fertilisers and Seeds Private Limited Vs. CCE, Pune - 2017 (345) ELT 560 (Tri. Mum.). The relevant observations of 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

....on very obviously connotes end-use such disassociation cannot be said to be intended. Chapter 31 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 deals entirely with fertilisers. Fertilisers, by its very nomenclature, indicates nothing but their usage; these are intended for use in agriculture for ensuring better yield of crop. Though the expression 'fertiliser' is an umbrella description, the specific goods that constitute fertilisers are enumerated therein. It is universally accepted that there are three basic fertilizing elements - nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium each of which makes a particular attribution to the yield. The explanatory notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature for chapter 31 excludes 'separate c....