2016 (8) TMI 889 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - whether the appellants final product is required to be classified as Plant Growth Regulator falling under Tariff Sub-heading 3808.10, as contended by the Revenue or the same is required to be classified as Bio-fertilizer falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 3808.20 of CETA, attracting nil rate of duty - Held that - the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present impugned order has followed the earlier Order-in-appeal passed by him. Admittedly, the earlier Order-in-Appeal has not been challenged by the Revenue and stands accepted. In such a scenario no infirmity can be found in the present order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he has simplicitor followed the earlier order on the classification. - Decided against the Revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
Classification of final product as Plant Growth Regulator or Bio-fertilizer under Central Excise Tariff Act.

Analysis:
The main issue in the appeal was the classification of the appellants' final product as either a Plant Growth Regulator under Tariff Sub-heading 3808.10 or a Bio-fertilizer falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 3808.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, which would attract a nil rate of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted the assessee's position based on a previous Order-in-Appeal in the same case, where a detailed classification order was issued. The Appellate Tribunal reviewed the earlier Order-in-Appeal, which had considered reports from the chemical examiner in New Delhi and the National Bio-fertilizer Development Centre in Ghaziabad. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not challenged the previous Order-in-Appeal, which had favored the respondent, and had been accepted by the Revenue. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced various decisions, including Tribunal and Supreme Court rulings, that classified similar products as bio-fertilizers instead of Plant Growth Regulators.

The Tribunal found that the appeal could be resolved without delving into the detailed merits of the case. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) had based the impugned order on the earlier Order-in-Appeal, which had not been challenged or reversed by the Revenue, the Tribunal saw no flaw in the Commissioner's decision to follow the previous classification order. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, as it found no merit in challenging the Commissioner's decision to uphold the classification based on the previous order.