Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)Pefco Foundry Chemicals Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Pune on 19 February, 1992
7. We have heard Shri P.C. Anand, Chartered Accountant for the appellants and Shri K.K. Bhatia, Jt CDR for the respondents. Shri Anand submitted that the learned Asstt. Collector was not justified in rejecting the customer's letter which supported the appellants contention that the goods commercially were known as fungicide. This was also supported by the Chemical examiner's report. The Collector(Appeals) was wholly unjustified in rejecting the report also. He contended that the department did not dispute about the product having fungicidal qualities in as much as it was used to kill fungis and keep the cosmetics and medicines intact. The department also did not dispute its qualities of prescription and therefore, both the lower authorities were not justified in rejecting the appellants case. He relied on the ruling of Sarita Chemicals v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [1987 (30) ELT 434 (Tri.)] which held that Customs test report should not be rejected.
Collector Of Centrals Excise vs Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. And Standard ... on 10 March, 1986
Therefore, in the present case the product is essentially a preservative which is different from product which is marketed as a fungicide and understood in the market as such. In this context, it has to be held that not much turns on the Chemical Examiner's observation that the product possess fungicidal property because he himself has referred to the label of the product describing it as a preservative and he himself has extracted the definition in technical literature of a preservative to say that it means any substance which prolongs the life of an organic material, either by admixture by impregnating by coating or by immersion. As for the reliance placed by the Departmental authorities on HSN Explanatory Notes it is now well-settled that these notes have persuasive value because the Central Excise Tariff Act broadly follows HSN and as was observed by the Tribunal in the Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bombay case (supra) these notes can be taken to represent the understanding of Imports and Exports and Customs Administration. In the result, the claim of the appellants herein for the classification of their product Bronidiol under Heading 3801.20 Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 as fungicides is not maintainable, and the lower authorities were correct in not classifying the product under that such heading. As for its classification under heading 29.02 and 29.05,1 am in agreement that Hon'ble Member (Judicial) that it has not been made out clearly by the lower authorities as to how the product comes under the ambit of the two such headings. Therefore, the case needs to be remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector for a proper classification of the product in accordance with law and after giving the appellants all the materials on which such classification is sought to be done by the Department.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
1