Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sree Ramcides Chemicals Pvt. Ltd vs Cce & St, Tiruchirapalli on 25 January, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI E/510/2010, E/ 208/2011, (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 7/2010 dated 14.07.2010 and Order-in-Original No. 1/2011 dated 27.01.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy M/s. Sree Ramcides Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. : Appellant Vs. CCE & ST, Tiruchirapalli : Respondents
E/365/2011 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 47/2011 dated 29.03.2011, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy) CCE & ST, Tiruchirapalli : Appellant Vs. M/s. Sree Ramcides Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. : Respondent E/40915 - 40918/2015 (Arising out of OIO No. 3/2015 dated 11.02.2015, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai).
1. M/s. Sree Ramcides Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. : Appellants
2. Shri K. Balaji
3. Shri S.M. Jayaprakasam
4. Shri R. Gopal Vs. CCE, Chennai : Respondent Appearance Shri N. Venkataraman, Sr. Counsel Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Adv., for the Appellants Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) and Shri L. Paneer Selvam, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member Honble Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member 07.01.2016/ Date of Hearing/Decision: 25.01.2016/ 27.01.2016 FINAL ORDER No. 40273-40279 / 2016 Per R. Periasami All the seven appeals are taken up together for disposal as the issue involved in these appeals are identical in nature. Appeals No. E/510/2010, E/208/2011, filed by Sree Ramcides Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., are arising out of two OIO No. 7/2010 dated 14.07.2010 and 1/2011 dated 27.01.2011. Revenue appeal No. E/365/2011 is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 47/2011 dated 29.03.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and Appeals No. E/40915 - 41918/2015 (appellant + three others) are filed against the OIO No. 3/2015 dated 11.02.2015, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant manufacture pesticides and plant growth materials and bio-fertilizers. The appellants in appeals No. E/510/10 and No. E/208/2010 are manufacturing Allwin Top powder, Allwin Wonder powder, Allwin gold 15 G Granules, Allwin XL granules, Rhino powder, Allwin gold-Liquid, Allwin XL-Liquid, Agrowet, Rishab-Liquid and Rock and classified them under CETSH 3101 0099 treating them as Animal/Vegetable fertilizers (or) bio-fertilizers. The department issued SCNs proposing to classify them under CETSH 3824 9090. The adjudicating authority in his orders classified the following goods under chapter 38 as under:-
S.No. Name of the Product CETSH 1. Allwin Top powder, 3824 90 90 2. Allwin Wonder powder, 3824 90 90 3. Rhino powder, 3808 99 90 4. Allwin XL-Liquid, 3808 99 90 5. Rishab 3808 99 90 6. Rock 3808 99 10 7. Allwin gold 15 G Granules, 3808 93 40 8. Allwin XL granules, 3808 93 40 9. Allwin gold-Liquid, 3808 93 40 10. Agrowet, 3402 90 49
The Commissioner Central Excise confirmed the demand of Rs.1,63,92,339/- and also imposed equal penalty in his OIO No. 7/2010 dated 14.07.2010 in appeal E/508/10. For the subsequent period also he confirmed Rs.2,37,65,131/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, vide his order No. 1/2011 dated 27.01.2011 in appeal No. E/208/2011.
3. In appeal E/40915/2015 on identical issue of the appellants Chennai unit they manufacture 10 items and the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II commissionerate classified all the goods ie., Allwin Top, Allwin Top plus, Allwin Wonder, Allwin Wonder plus, Allwin Gold, Allwin Legume, Allwin Elixier and Ramdoot under 3824 9090 except Allwin Gold which is classified under 3808 9340 and Dosth (Agrowet) under 3402 9049 and confirmed the demand of Rs.5,73,43,232/- and imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and appropriated an amount of Rs. 27,83,800/- against duty and appropriated an amount of Rs.11,70,373/- against interest and also imposed personal penalty on three others viz. Shri K. Gopal, MD., Shri K. Balaji (GM) and Shri S.M. Jaya prakasam, Factory Manager, under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Hence all these appeals.
4. Revenue preferred appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 47/2011 dated 29.03.2011, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy, against classification of the products. The Ld. Commissioner (appeals) has allowed the assesses appeal and set aside the impugned order. He upheld the classification of the products as bio-fertilizers under 3101 0099.
5. Heard both sides extensively. These appeals were heard on 07.01.2016. Ld. Sr. Counsel Shri. N. Venkataraman supported by Shri Hari Radhakrishnan appeared on behalf of the appellants and also submitted written synopsis. He submits that out of the total demand confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy, they are not contesting five items viz., Rishab, Allwin XL, Rock, Agrowet and Rhino and contesting only the remaining three items. In respect of Commissioner Central Excise, Chennai, they are contesting all the items.
6. He further submits that the products manufactured by the appellant are classifiable as other fertilizers under chapter heading 3105 as all the items contain nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium or together. He submits that the adjudicating authority has not disputed the contents of the goods but only rejected the classification under CETH 3105 purely based on the reasoning that their goods are not covered under Fertilizers Control Order, 1995 (FCO). Sr. Counsel drew attention of the Bench to the Boards Circular dated 24.05.1990 at page 87 and another Circular dated 21/11/1994 at page 88 and Circular dated 19.05.1998 at page 86. He also drew attention to chapter note 2 to chapter 61 and HSN explanatory note 6 annexed at page 6 & page 22 and submits that as per note 6 for the purpose of heading 3105, the term other fertilizers applies only to products of a kind used as fertilizers and containing as an essential constituent, at least one of the element is nitrogen phosphorous or potassium. For the purpose of classification, he submits that FOC is not relevant nor chapter note specified give any reference to FCO. He further drew attention to para 13, 13.1 & 13.5 of the OIO No. 3/2015 dated 11/02/2015 and submits that the adjudicating authority erroneously came to a conclusion that these are Plant Growth Regulators.
7. Further he submits that these goods are not classifiable under 3824 and drew attention to the Explanatory Note sl.No. 47 at page 80 of the paper book and submits that in order to classify the goods as plant growth regulators, the goods should be consisting of products classifiable under chapter 25 ie. they are sand and clay, whether or not they contain small quantity of fertilizing elements nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium. Heading 3824 which relates to chemical products and preparations, not elsewhere specified or included in their case the products are not chemically defined products but are mixtures and they did not contain any soil or clay as media. It is only foliar spray applied on the plant. He also drew attention to FCO and as per the definition, fertilizers means any specific use or intended to be used as fertilizer on the soil or rock and includes mix of fertilizer, bio-fertilizers and organic fertilizers. Therefore, these products are rightly classifiable under 3105 as they are other fertilizers as classified by Boards Circular read with chapter note6.
8. As regards the items Allwin gold, the Sr. Counsel submits that the department classified the goods under 3808 as plant growth regulators. As per the chemical contents of Allwin Gold, it contains nitro-benzene (11% nitrogen and urea) also contains nitrogen. They used nitro benzene in the mixture which contains nitrogen, along with other materials, therefore, it is rightly classifiable as fertilizers and not plant growth regulators. He also submits that Allwin Gold do not have any hormones as that of any growth regulators. He explained the definition of plant growth regulators annexed at page-97 of the paper book and submits that plant growth regulators may be naturally occurring plant produced chemicals called hormones or synthetically produced compounds. There are three categories viz., auxins, gibberellins or cytokinins etc. He also drew our attention to the list of GFR, and as per the literature of TN Agricultural University (TNAU) at page 96 where the list of PGRs are brought out. He also drew attention to the product marketed by their competitors (at page 89) manufactured by Devi Crop science Pvt. Ltd., and the product (Boom flower) containing nitrobenzene, which is sprayed on the foliage. He relied on the Honble High Court order in the case of Blossom products Vs, Salestax (page 125) order dated 29.08.2011, the Honble High Court upheld the classification of the product under HSN 3105.90.
9. He further submits that as per the chapter note 1 A sub-clause 2 of chapter 38 (1to 9 of the paper book), this chapter excludes the products which are chemically defined elements or compounds. In their case the goods are not chemically defined products but it is only a mixture. In support of his arguments, he relied on two Tribunal orders at page 106 2001 134 ELT 294 (Tri.-Del.) and 2001 131 ELT 355 (Tri.-Del.), where the Tribunal held that the goods are not covered under 38.08. He also drew our attention to HSN explanatory note at page 50 and also SCN para 13.1.4 (page 144 & 145), where the department concedes in the SCN that the composition of Allwin Gold is a mixture and not separate chemically defined compound. He submits that Allwin Gold is not classifiable under 38.08 and classifiable under 31.05.
10. Regarding Dosth, he submits that this product is supplied along with Allwin wonder plus, which is in combination pack. He further submits that Dosth is a wetting agent. He produced the sample of Alwyn wonder plus and submits that it contains small pouch of Dosth inside it. The main product Aliwin wonder plus is classifiable under 3105 and Dosth also is liable to be classified along with the main item. He relied on para 14 of the order 2012 284 ELT 691 (Tri.-Del.)
11. On the other hand, Ld. AR, Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC reiterated the findings of the OIO and SCN. As per FCO the definition of fertilizer means any substance used or intended to be used as a fertilizer of the soil and/or crop and specified in Part A or Schedule I and includes a mixture of fertiliser, the appellants products are not figuring in the schedule. Therefore, adjudicating authority has rightly held that these are not fertilizers as per FCO. She relied on the Tribunals decision in the case of Himgiri Metals Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 (308) ELT 735 (Tri.-Del.) and in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. Karnataka Agro Chemicals 2008 (227) ELT12 (S.C.). She also drew attention to the test report at page 103 and submits that test report does not show that the goods are fertilizers. Whereas, she also submits that in none of their packets, the appellants mentioned that they are fertilizers. She drew attention to the order of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Agro Chemicals (supra), wherein the Honble Supreme Court remanded the case to the adjudicating authority to determine whether the presence of nitrogen to classify as fertilizer and pleaded for remand of the case to the adjudicating authority. She also submits that as per the Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 13.3.06 related to exemption of imported goods which are used in the manufacture of fertilizers and the said notification allows exemption of fertilizers as per the meaning under FCO and she submits that exemption is only allowed for fertilizers covered under FCO and not for any other items. Therefore, the adjudicating authority rightly classified the products as plant growth regulators under 3824. Dosth has been correctly classified under 3402 and in this regard she submits that the main pack Allwin wonder plus does not mentioned that Dosth is kept as free inside it. Therefore, they have not declared this Dosh as a combi-pack.
12. Sr. Counsel in a rejoinder countered the arguments of the Ld. AR and submits that the Revenues contention that packaged goods do not bear description is wrong and it is clearly mentioned that particulars specially fertilizers. He further submits that the Revenues plea for remand is not justified as there is no dispute as far as contents of the test reports and samples were duly drawn and tested and the test report is available clearly shows that the contents nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium. Therefore, the facts are very clear and the matter need not be remanded and no longer res intergra. He has also countered that the Boards Circular dated 19.05.98 clearly shows that FCO is not relevant for classification of fertilizers under CET and also countered that Himgiri Metals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Revenue is not applicable to the present case as it is for the exemption given under the notification. Whereas, in their case, classification of the goods under CET at nil rate of duty.
13. We have carefully considered the submissions by both sides and perused the records and all the three adjudication order and OIAs. As the appellants are not contesting the demand confirmed on the products such as Rishab, Allwin XL, Rock, Agrowet, Rhino in appeal E/510/2010, E/365/2011 are containing some insecticidal property but they are contesting only the products ie. 1. Allwin Gold, 2. Allwin Top, 3. Allwin Top plus, 4. Allwin Wonder, 5. Allwin Wonder Plus, 6. Allwin Legume, 7. Allwin Elixer, 8. Ramdoot, 9. Bolt, 10. Dosth. Out of these 10 products, appellant claimed classification 3105 9090 whereas the Revenue classified them under 3824 9090 as plant growth regulators. In respect of Allwin gold, the appellant classified it under 3105 9090 whereas the adjudicating authority classified it under 3808 9340 and the last item Dosth the appellant classified it under 3105 9090 and the department classified it under 3402 9049.
14. On perusal of the adjudication order, we find that the adjudicating authority has classified these products referred above at sl. No 2 to 9, as plant growth regulators and rejected the classification under 31.05 purely on the ground that these products are not figuring under schedule to FCO, 1995. This was the sole ground for rejecting classification under Chapter 31. We also find that there is no dispute on the facts relating to the description of the contents, chemical composition etc., which has been admitted by the adjudicating authority as these goods are not mixtures and chemically defined. Having the department accepted the appellants plea that these are only mixtures but choose to classify them under 3824 as plant growth regulators. In this regard it is pertinent to see the chapter note 6 of chapter 31 and the corresponding HSN explanatory note to chapter 31 which is reproduced as under:-
6. For the purposes of heading 31.05, the term other fertilisers applies only to products of a kind used as fertilizers and containing, as an essential constituent, at least one of the fertilising elements nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium.
15. HSN explanatory note and Chapter note 6 of chapter 31 is identically worded similar to chapter note 6 of chapter 31. It is seen from the above, in order to classify the goods under 3105 as other fertilizers, two condition are stipulated under chapter note the conditions to be satisfied ie.
1. It should be used as fertilizers
2. Should contain essential constituent at least one of the fertilizing element as essential constituent, N, P, K The period involved is October 2008 to 2012-13. During the relevant period, under heading 3105 the rate of duty was Nil. In this regard, it is pertinent to see the Boards Circular dated 392/25/98-CX dated 19.05.98, wherein the Board has issued clarification on classification of Micronutrients. The relevant extracts of Boards Circulars are reproduced as under:-
Attention is invited to the instructions contained in Board"s Circular No. 79/79/94-CX., dated 21-11-1994 [See 1994 (74) E.L.T. T46] wherein Board had clarified that Micronutrients listed under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 and their mixtures (with or without N.P.K.), as notified by the Central Government or a State Government would be classifiable under CET Chapter 31.05.
2. A doubt has been raised regarding classification of certain Micro- nutrients such as compounds of Zinc, Boron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Iron etc., which are required in minor quantities to regulate plant growth -whether classifiable as fertilisers (31.05), plant growth regulators (38.08) or as separate chemically defined compound (Ch. 28).
3. The matter has been re-examined in the light of Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise -Civil Appeal No.5404 of 1993, decided on 10-9-1996- 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.). Micronutrients are basically salts of elements such as Zinc, Boron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Iron, etc., known as trace elements. These are essential for plant growth in small amounts only and their absence leads to stunted growth. These elements are supplied in minor quantities to regulate the formation of hormones etc., which in turn alter life processes of the plant so as to accelerate growth, enhance yield and improve quality, thus indirectly contributing to regulate plant growth.
4. According to HSN Explanatory Notes, plant growth regulators are applied to alter the life process of the plant so as to accelerate or retard growth, enhance yield, improve quality of facilitate harvesting, etc. Plant hormones are one type of plant growth regulators. Synthetic organic chemicals are also used as plant growth regulators.
5. Fertilizers are materials added to soil and, sometimes to foliage to supply nutrients to sustain plants and promote their abundant and fruitful growth. The elements that constitute these plant foods are divided into three classes -(1) Primary-Nitrogen (N), Phosphorous (P) and Potassium (K), (2) Secondary -Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg) and Sulphur (5) and (3) Minor or so called micronutrients -Iron (Fe), Manganese (Mn), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), Boron (B) and Molybdenum (Mo). However, for the purpose of classification of micronutrients as "Other Fertilizers" in Heading 31.05 CET, the scope of the term "Other Fertilizers" has to be determined in the light of Note 6 of Chapter 31. Further, the specific exclusion of separate chemically defined compounds as laid down in the HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 3105.90, must also be borne in mind. If, the micronutrient is a separate chemically defined com- pound, it will be classifiable under Chapter 28/29. If not so, and if in accordance with Note 8 to Chapter 31, it contains N, P or K, it will be classifiable under Chapter Heading 31.
6. Further it is also stated that notification under F.C.O. is irrelevant for deciding classification under the Central Excise Tariff and regardless of such notification, the appropriate consideration should be :-
(i) whether or not the micronutrient in question is a separate chemically defined compound. If it is, then classification under 31.05 is ruled out; and
(ii) if it is not, whether it contains N, P or K as laid down in the Explanatory Notes.
7. Therefore, it is clarified that classification of micronutrients may be done in accordance with the above guidelines.
16. It is seen from the above circular, Board has categorically clarified what is fertilizer and what is micronutrients. At para-6 of the Boards Circular the Board has categorically stated that the Notification issued under FCO is irrelevant for deciding the classification under CET and also clarified FCO order the classification should be based on whether the goods are chemically defined compound only then the classification under 3105 is ruled out. Secondly, where the products consist of nitrogen phosphorous and potassium as laid down in the explanatory notes, it falls under other fertilizers. If these two conditions are not met only then the products can be excluded from chapter heading 31.05. As it is seen from the finding of the adjudicating authority and the test reports, the composition of the mixture contains either nitrogen, potassium or phosphorous, which has already been brought out in para-13 of the OIO dated 11.02.2015 and admitted that these products contain elements of N.P.K. single or combination. We find that Allwin Wonder plus and Allwin wonder contains potassium and nitro benzene which has elements of both Nitrogen and potassium. In the case of Allwin Top plus and Allwin Top contains Mono ammonium phosphate, and potassium humate which contains both phosphorous and potassium. In the case of Allwin Legume and Allwin Elixier both products contain nitrogen, phosphorous etc., which clearly confirms as other fertilizers as stipulated under Chapter note 6 of chapter 31 and confirms Boards Circular referred above.
17. As far as the second criteria is concerned, goods are used as fertilizer spray on the folio, which is not in dispute. As per the definition of the fertilizers, we find that the fertilizers which are either mixed in the soil or also used externally in the form of spray. The Revenue relying on the citation of Honble Karnataka and Himgiri Metals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are distinguishable and not relevant to the facts of the present case. In that case case, the Honble High Court remanded the matter to the authority to confirm whether the products contain elements of nitrogen etc. Whereas, in the present case, there is no dispute on the composition as confirmed from the test reports and confirms that both nitrogen and phosphorous or nitrogen and potassium or either one of the above are present in these mixtures and the usage as folio spray is not under dispute. Therefore, the adjudicating authority relying Fertilizer Control Order (FCO) for deciding the classification under 3105 is not justified and not substantiated. Accordingly, we hold that these products (sl.no. 3 to 9) qualified to be considered as other chemical fertilizers and contain either nitrogen, phosphorous or potassium, which is the essential constituents to be classified under other fertilizers. Accordingly, we hold that these products are rightly classifiable under 3105 9090 and not under 3824 9090.
18. As regards Allwin Gold, we find that the adjudicating authority proposed to classify it under 3808 9340. As already discussed above, the composition of the product contains nitro benzene (20%) and urea (3%) along with other chemicals, which is not under dispute. It is not the case here that the appellants are clearing nitro benzene as such but it is used as one of the raw materials for manufacture of the product which is Allwin Gold. Both urea and nitrobenzene contains nitrogen which is essential ingredient for fertilizers. Therefore, the Revenue classifying them as plant growth regulators is not justified. We also find from the test reports and noticed that it does not contain any hormone ie., auxins, gibberellins or cytokinins. These are chemical hormones whether naturally or synthetically considered as growth regulators. In the present case, it is only a mixture of chemicals which are sprayed as folio spray for enhancing the growth of the folio in the stage of blooming. Accordingly, we do not see any justification by the Revenue classifying the products under 3808 9340 as PGR. Therefore, we hold that Allwin Gold is rightly classifiable under 3105 9090.
19. As regards the last item Dosth, we find that this product was not declared by the appellant nor it was cleared separately but kept in the packets as a combi-pack. On perusal of the sample packet of Allwin wonder plus, we find that Dosth is a wetting agent and kept inside the pack of Allwin wonder plus as 20 ml sachet. It is an option to the user to use this wetting agent comes with combi-pack. We rely on the Tribunals decision in the case of Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2012 (284) ELT 69, where the Tribunal dealt in the case of combi-pack the classification of the second item which contains in the main pack should be classified along with the main item. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:-
13.?In order to find answer to the aforesaid question, it is necessary to have a look on the relevant General Rules for the Interpretation of this Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which is reproduced thus :
Classification of goods in this Schedule shall be governed by the following principles :
1. The titles of Sections, Chapters and Sub-Chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes and, provided such headings or Notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions :
2. (a) Any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished for falling to be classified as complete (or finished by virtue of this rule), presented unassembled or disassembled.
(b) Any reference in a heading to a material or substance shall be taken to include a reference to mixtures or combinations of that material or substance with other materials or substances. Any reference to goods a given material or substance shall be taken to include a reference to goods consisting wholly or partly of such material or substance. The classification of goods consisting of more than one material or substance shall be according to the principles of Rule 3.
3. When by application of rule 2(b) or for any other reason, goods are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows:
(a)?the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in a set put up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods.
(b)?mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials made up or different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to (a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, insofar as this criterion is applicable.
(c)?when goods cannot be classified by reference to (a) or (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit classification.
14.?On reading of the above Rule 3 of interpretation, it is clear that since combi-pack comprises of two different articles classifiable under different chapters and sub-heading of the Central Excise Act, 1985, the classification of combi-pack would be governed by Rule 3(b) of the above quoted Rule. Rule 3(b) of above quoted Rule provides that in such a case, the goods put up in sets for retail sale shall be classified as if they consisted of material or component which give them essential character in so far as that criterion is applicable. The above citation squarely applicable to the present case. There is no dispute that that the appellants are not clearing the wetting agent separately. But it is packed inside Allwin Wonder plus and sell it as a combi-pack. Accordingly, we hold that Dosth is rightly classifiable under 3105 9090 along with the main item.
20. In view of the foregoing discussions as above:
1) In respect of appeal No. E/510/2010 and E/208/2011:-
(a) we uphold the impugned orders demanding excise duty on products viz., 1. Rishab, 2. Allwin XL, 3. Rock, 4. Agrowet 5. Rhino and the demand and interest is upheld. As there is no breakup of duty amount of each item, we direct the adjudicating authority to quantify the duty amount in respect of the above items covered under both the appeals.
(b) the appellants are liable for penalty in respect of appeal No. E/510/2010. The equivalent penalty imposed under Section 11 AC is upheld to the extent of amount determined by the adjudicating authority after quantification of duty amount as directed (a) above.
(c) In appeal E/365/2011 the penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs imposed under Rule 25 is reduced to Rs. 5.00 lakhs.
(d) We hold the products Allwin Top, Allwin Wonder, Allwin gold are classifiable under chapter 3105 9090 and set aside the demand confirmed by the Commissioner, Trichy in his orders covered in the above two appeals. Consequently, the penalty on these items also set aside to that extent.
2) In respect of appeal E/40915/2015:-
(a) We hold that all the items covered in the OIO No. 3/2015 dated 11.02.2015 is classifiable under chapter 3105 9090 of CET.
(b) Consequently, the impugned order confirming demand and imposition of penalty is set aside.
3) In respect of appeals E/40916/2015, E/40917/15 and E/40918/15 of Shri K. Gopal, MD., Shri K. Balaji (GM) and Shri S.M. Jaya Prakasam, Factory Manager, since demand is set aside in the assessees appeal E/40915/2015, the imposition of penalty on the individuals does not arise and the same is set aside.
4) In respect of Revenue appeal No. E/365/2011, the impugned order is set aside and the adjudication order is restored to the extent of the products Rishab, Allwin ZL, Rock, Agrowet and Rhino and the penalty is waived.
21. In the result,
(i) appeals filed by the appellant Sree Ramcides Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Trichy in appeal E/510/2010 and E/208/2011 are partly allowed.
(ii) the appeal filed by Sree Ramcides Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Chennai in appeal No. E/40915/2015, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(ii) Revenue appeal No. E/365/2011 is partly allowed.
(iv) appeals No. E/40916-40918/2015 filed by Shri K. Gopal, MD., Shri K. Balaji (GM) and Shri S.M. Jaya Prakasam, Factory Manager, of the appellant Company are allowed with consequential relief if any.
(Order Dictated and Pronounced in open court on)
(P.K. CHOUDHARY) (R. PERIASAMI)
Judicial Member Tehnical Member
BB
1