2007 (3) TMI 461 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and valuation based on MRP basis.

The appeal was made against the Commissioner's order dated 20-6-2005, where the appellant's product "Vipul Booster" was classified under Chapter Sub-heading 3808.10 instead of Chapter Heading 3808.20, leading to valuation based on Maximum Retail Price (MRP) under Section 4A of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944. This resulted in a confirmed differential duty and penalty imposed on the appellant.

According to the appellant, their product "Vipul Booster" contains "Triacontanol," an insecticide, but it should not be classified as an insecticide as determined by the Commissioner. They argued that the product primarily functions as a plant growth promoter, containing only 0.1% of "Triacontanol" along with emulsifiers and preservatives. The appellant emphasized that the product is marketed solely as a plant growth promoter, not an insecticide, as indicated in their communication with the Central Insecticide Board.

The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that since "Triacontanol" is an insecticide and the other ingredients are emulsifiers and preservatives, the product should be considered solely as an insecticide and classified under 3808.10.

After careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that while "Triacontanol" is an insecticide, the functionality of "Vipul Booster" as an insecticide in such a diluted form was not proven. The burden of proof that the product should be taxed as an insecticide lies with the department. Since the product is not marketed as an insecticide and expert opinions support the appellant's claim, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. The department failed to provide evidence that "Vipul Booster" in its diluted form can function as an insecticide, leading to the allowance of the appeal with consequential relief.