2007 (2) TMI 8 - SC - Central Excise

Fertilizer Question arise whether a crushed bone can be treated as fertilizer After considering the prior decision adjudicating authority leave the question open for subsequent cases

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether crushed bone can be treated as fertilizer.

Analysis:
The case involved the question of whether crushed bone could be considered as fertilizer. The appellant challenged a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which held that crushed bone could be classified as fertilizer based on certain notifications issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh. These notifications exempted fertilizers from sales tax, but the appellant argued that crushed bone did not fall under the definition of fertilizer. The High Court relied on decisions by the Tribunal and other courts to support its conclusion.

The appellant contended that the High Court erred in its interpretation, citing judgments from the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Allahabad High Court that emphasized the distinction between crushed bone and fertilizer. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had previously ruled that bone-meal or crushed bones should be subject to sales tax, and the Allahabad High Court also distinguished between bone meal and crushed bone, stating that crushed bones are not typically sold as fertilizers.

The Supreme Court considered expert opinions and common law principles in determining the classification of crushed bone. It noted the differences between bone meal and crushed bone, as well as the various uses of these products. The Court emphasized the importance of expert opinions in such matters and concluded that crushed bones should not be treated as fertilizers. The Court set aside the orders of the Assessing Authorities and left the question open for future cases.

Additionally, the Court addressed the issue of rectification by the Assessing Authority based on subsequent decisions. It referenced a case regarding rectification of mistakes in the Income Tax Act, highlighting the distinction between rectification of mistakes and the power of a civil court to review its own order. The Court allowed the appeal with observations on the rectification issue and ruled in favor of the appellant without imposing costs.