Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Bayer Indian Syntans Ltd on 20 April, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/311/2004
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.427/2003 dt. 25.11.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Appellant/s
Versus
Bayer Indian Syntans Ltd.
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri V.V.Hariharan, JCDR Shri M.Kannan, Advocate For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 20.4.2011 Date of decision : 20.4.2011 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue for determination in the present appeal is the classification of the product Preventol NP whether a fungicide under Chapter Heading 38.08.10 as claimed by the assessees and upheld by both the authorities below, or under Chapter Heading 38.08.90 as preservative, as claimed by the Revenue.
2. We have heard both sides. We find that the adjudicating authority has accepted the contention of the assessee on classification based upon the HSN Explanatory Notes on fungicides, test report of the Chemical Examiner and the explanation furnished by the CLRI, Chennai. The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the findings and the department has not been able to dislodge the finding of the authorities below that the product is fungicide classifiable under Chapter Heading 38.08.10. The product is used as a chemical agent to effectively protect against attack of micro organisms like fungi, bacteria and moulds and since Preventol MP is generally used prior to attack by micro organisms, it can be classified as protective fungicide. All functions such as preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating the cause for deterioration of leather by micro organisms namely fungus/bacteria serve the purpose of fungicide. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
gs
1
2