CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE Regional Bench COURT-2.

Excise Appeal No. 1179 of 2010 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 115/2010 dated 09.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) Bangalore.]

Multiplex Fertilizers Pvt., Ltd.

No. 180, 1^st Main Road, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560086 .......Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise P. B. No. 5400, Queens Road, C. R. Building, Bangalore Karnataka-560001 ..... Respondent WITH (i) Excise Appeal No. 23457 of 2014 (Multiplex Fertilizers Pvt Ltd)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 468/2014 dated 30.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) Bangalore]

(ii) Excise Appeal No. 23458 of 2014 (Mahesh Shetty Director)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 470/2014 dated 30.07.2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) Bangalore]

(iii) Excise Appeal No. 20711 of 2015 (G. Mahesh Shetty)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 469/2014-CE dated 31.07.2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) Bangalore.]

Appearance:

Mr. M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate for Appellant Mr. Sanjay venkat, Authorized Representative for Respondent Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. P.A. Augustian, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical)

FINAL ORDER Nos. 21373-21376 of 2025 Date of Hearing: 03.01.2025 Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 Per: P. A. Augustian The issues in the present appeals are:-

i) whether the products manufactured/marketed by the Appellants are re-classifiable for demand of central excise duty;

ii) whether the demand of duty can be confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation;

iii) whether personal penalties imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 are sustainable; and iv) whether the Appellant is eligible for refund of the duty, interest and penalty paid after issue of first Order-in-Original.

2. The details of the appeals and the issues involved as submitted by the Appellant are tabulated below;

3. As regards classification of the goods, Learned Counsel draws our attention to the details of the Final Order Nos. 341-347/2007 issued by this Tribunal in the present case in first stage of litigation in the matter of Karnataka Agro Chemicals Vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2007 (215) ELT 470 (Tri. Bang) wherein it has dealt with the Appeals filed by M/s. Multiplex Fertilizers Pvt., Ltd., separately and recorded findings in respect of 4(four) products stated to have been manufactured by the Appellant the relevant details pertaining the appellant as per the common Final Order No. 341-347/2002 dated 26.02.2007 are as under:

E/164 & 165/2005: M/s. Multiplex Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Mahesh G. Shetty "7. The impugned product is Muliplex Multinol manufactured by the appellant. The appellants have contended that the impugned product is a Micronutrient Fertilizer containing Nitrogen. They have referred to the test report of the sample by Chemical Examiner which says that the product is composed of organic matter containing Nitrogen. However, in a Note appended to the Report, the Chemical Examiner has stated that from the literature supplied by manufacturer that the sample (Multinol) is 'manufactured from Rice bran, Potassium Hydroxide and Ethyl Alcohol'. Based on the above and laboratory findings, the sample is free from fertilizing elements Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium. The test report is rather contradictory. The learned Advocate has pointed out that the above Test Report relates to samples drawn from M/s Karnataka Agro Chemicals and not from M/s Multiplex Fertilizers Pvt Ltd. He has drawn our attention to Annexure C and submits that Multiplex Multinol is mentioned at Sl. No. 5 under Group B. Against B, it is clearly mentioned that the samples of the 14 products mentioned in the said group are drawn at the factory premises of M/s Karnataka Agro Chemicals. Even the test memo indicates that the samples are drawn at M/s Karnataka Agro Chemicals. The samples drawn a