2018 (9) TMI 248 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - Chelated Zinc as 12% - Chelated Iron as 12% Fe - mixture of Chelated substance - whether the said products are classifiable under 3105 as other fertilizers or as Plant Growth Regulators‟ under CETA 3808 9340? - benefit of N/N. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. Held that - The issue of classification of micronutrients‟ has been in confusion for a number of years - We find resonance in a recent decision of the Tribunal, in Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. Aries Agrovet Industries Ltd. 2017 (7) TMI 289 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , where it was held that In view of presence of nitrogen, and also considering that they are mixtures and not separate chemically defined compounds, the said goods would therefore come under the ambit of micronutrient fertilisers and will then required to be classified as in other fertilisers in CETH 31.05. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Micronutrient Mixtures.
2. Applicability of Note 6 of Chapter 31.
3. Minimum Percentage Requirement for Nitrogen, Phosphorous, or Potassium.
4. Assumption of Goods as Plant Growth Regulators.
5. Exclusion by Note 1 to Chapter 38.
6. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Micronutrient Mixtures:
The primary issue revolves around the correct classification of micronutrient mixtures manufactured by the appellants. The appellants classified their products under Central Excise Tariff Heading 3105 as "other fertilizers," while the Department contended that they should be classified as "Plant Growth Regulators" under CETA 3808 9340. The Tribunal referenced binding precedents and Board Circulars, particularly the Tribunal's decision in Hindustan Agro Insecticides and San Industries, which supported classification under Chapter Sub-heading 3105.90 as other fertilizers.

2. Applicability of Note 6 of Chapter 31:
The Appellant argued that their classification satisfies Note 6 of Chapter 31, which requires the product to be of a kind used as fertilizers, containing nitrogen, phosphorous, or potassium as essential constituents, and not being separate chemically defined compounds. The Tribunal acknowledged that the products met these criteria, as they contained nitrogen, an essential constituent, even if in small percentages.

3. Minimum Percentage Requirement for Nitrogen, Phosphorous, or Potassium:
The Tribunal noted that neither the Tariff Entries, Chapter Notes, nor HSN Notes stipulated a minimum percentage for nitrogen, phosphorous, or potassium to qualify for classification under Chapter Sub-heading 31 05. The manufacturing process involved the use of ammonia, retaining nitrogen in the final product, thus meeting the essential constituent requirement. The Tribunal found no basis for the Commissioner’s assertion that the low percentage of nitrogen disqualified the goods from being classified as fertilizers.

4. Assumption of Goods as Plant Growth Regulators:
The Commissioner’s assumption that the goods were a type of plant growth regulators, such as Gibberellins, was deemed unfounded and beyond the scope of the show cause notice and Order-in-Original. The Tribunal highlighted that there was no material evidence suggesting the presence of Gibberellins in the subject goods, which were established as micronutrient mixtures containing nitrogen.

5. Exclusion by Note 1 to Chapter 38:
The Tribunal emphasized that Chapter Heading 3808 applies only to separate chemically defined compounds, which the subject goods were not. The micronutrients manufactured by the Appellant were mixtures, thus excluded from classification under Chapter 38 by Note 1.

6. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
The Tribunal found that the demand was substantially time-barred. The extended period of limitation was not invocable in a contentious classification dispute, especially when the Department had previously accepted the goods as fertilizers and demanded 1% duty on that basis. The Tribunal concluded that there was no scope for invoking the extended period after a lapse of two years.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, concluding that the micronutrient mixtures should be classified under CETA 31.05 as other fertilizers, not as plant growth regulators under Chapter 38. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per law.

← Previous Next →