ATHIPHAL

The appellants had filed declaration and also had correspondence with the Department with regard to their product ‘ATHIPHAL’ manufactured by them to be classifiable as fertilizer under Chapter 31.01 of Central Excise Tariff Act. However, Department after a period of time initiated proceedings to invoke Larger period in terms of Proviso to Section 11A of the Act on the ground of suppression of facts and misdeclaration for the reason that the appellants had always cleared the item indicating it to be only as a fertilizer. The item not being a plant growth regulator but a fertilizer hence they were charged for having mis-classified the item. Hence, the proceedings against them. The Commissioner has upheld the Revenue’s contention that the item is a plant growth regulator for classification under 38.08 of Central Excise Tariff Act and not as a fertilizer. However, after a detailed examination of all the evidence on record, the Commissioner has held that they had not misled the Department but had given all the facts and had declared the item to be plant growth regulator, which is evident from the correspondence. The Commissioner has also relied on the letter of the Assistant Commissioner dtd. 8-10-90 accepting their plea after proper verification of the facts of the case. She has noted that ‘merely because appellant claimed the item to be fertilizer, it cannot be held against them, when they had clearly declared in their declaration that ‘athiphal’ is a growth regulator'.