Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1587 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Classification of the product "Vipul Booster" - Whether it is a plant growth regulator, fertilizer, or insecticide. Analysis: The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the correct classification of the product "Vipul Booster." The appellant classified it under tariff heading 3808 9340, attracting an 8% rate of duty. The appellant, located in Jammu and Kashmir under exemption notification No. 56/2002, paid duty on the final product out of Cenvat credit and PLA. However, the Central Excise officer viewed the product as correctly classifiable under Chapter heading 31.01 as a fertilizer attracting a nil rate of duty, leading to the rejection of the refund claim by the original adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed that the product is not a fertilizer but disagreed with the appellant's classification as a plant growth regulator under tariff heading 3808 9340. Instead, he classified it as an insecticide under 3808 9199. Due to the absence of the insecticide tariff entry before the original adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, rejecting the appeals. The total self-credit amount involved was Rs. 4,18,80,002, inclusive of duty, education cess, and higher education cess, of which a portion was already reversed by the appellants. The Tribunal noted the differing classifications of the product as a plant growth regulator, fertilizer, or insecticide. Both parties agreed that the insecticide classification was not considered by the original adjudicating authority. Consequently, the matter was remanded for the Assistant Commissioner to evaluate the classification under the heading of insecticides. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and emphasized that no opinion was expressed on the classification, directing the parties to consider relevant factors for determining the product's classification. In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the matter for reevaluation, focusing on the classification under the insecticides category. The stay petitions and appeals were disposed of accordingly.
|