9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1089 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - BIOSTAR - whether the goods manufactured by the appellant that is BIOSTAR, is classifiable as Plant Growth Regulators under Chapter Heading No.38089340 of first schedule Central Excise Tariff Act,1985 or the same is classifiable as Plant Growth promoter (fertilizer)? Held that - The product is highly of Chemical in nature. The classification can be decided only after proper Chemical test. On query from the bench, both sides referred to test report of Chemical Examiners which states as Literature available in Laboratory and the ingredients used in the manufacture suggests it is a synthetic formulation for plant use - From this report it is not clear that as per the nature of the product and ingredient exist own the product is Plant Growth Regulator or Bio Plant Promoter. The Department should seek for a clear report from the Chemical Examiner that as per composition of the product in report already given by the Chemical Examiner, whether the product is a Plant Growth Regulator as claimed by the department as the Bio Plant Promoter (Fetilizer), as per the claim of the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
Classification of goods as Plant Growth Regulators under Chapter Heading No.38089340 or as Plant Growth promoter (fertilizer). Analysis: The issue in this case revolves around the classification of the goods manufactured by the appellant, BIOSTAR, as either Plant Growth Regulators or Plant Growth promoter (fertilizer) under Chapter Heading No.38089340 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant argues that the product is a bio plant promoter and not a pesticide, thus should be classified as a fertilizer. The appellant contests the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who classified the product as Plant Growth Regulators primarily due to the presence of Gibbrelic acid as a minimal ingredient of 0.01%. The appellant relies on various judgments to support their claim, emphasizing that the product should not be classified solely based on this minimal ingredient. On the other hand, the Revenue represented by the Ld. Commissioner (AR) supports the findings of the impugned order regarding the classification of the product as Plant Growth Regulators. The Tribunal carefully considers the submissions from both sides and reviews the records. It notes that the product is predominantly chemical in nature and requires a proper chemical test for accurate classification. The Chemical Examiners' report indicates that the product is a synthetic formulation for plant use, but it does not definitively determine whether the product should be classified as a Plant Growth Regulator or a Bio Plant Promoter. The appellant argues that besides Gibberilic Acid, other ingredients are used for Plant Growth Regulation, but the test report lacks detailed technical analysis on this aspect. Consequently, the Tribunal decides that a clear report from the Chemical Examiner is necessary to determine the classification accurately. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after obtaining clarification from the Chemical Examiner, specifically based on the existing report. In conclusion, the Tribunal allows the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a detailed clarification from the Chemical Examiner to establish the correct classification of the product as either a Plant Growth Regulator or a Bio Plant Promoter (Fertilizer). The judgment highlights the importance of technical analysis and clear examination in determining the appropriate classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
|
