2019 (11) TMI 425 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - Harvest Plus and Cash Plus - Whether to be classified under Central Excise Tariff Chapter No.31 or under Chapter 38? - HELD THAT - Without subjecting the goods to the chemical examination by competent chemical laboratory the aspect of whether the goods are only Plant Growth Enhancers or they also have capability of regulating the plant growth cannot be ascertained. The matter remanded to Original Adjudicating Authority i.e. Commissioner with direction to get the goods examined by departmental chemical laboratory i.e. CRCL to decide whether the goods manufactured by manufacturer are Plant Growth Regulators or Plant Growth Enhancers - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Analysis:
1. Issue: Classification of goods - Harvest Plus and Cash Plus under Central Excise Tariff Chapter No.31.
- Details: The manufacturer claimed the goods to be Plant Growth Enhancers under Chapter 31, while Revenue argued they should be classified under Chapter 38 as Plant Growth Regulators.
- Judgment: The Order-in-Original accepted the classification under Chapter 31, leading Revenue to appeal. The Tribunal noted the need for chemical composition analysis to ascertain if the goods act as Plant Growth Enhancers or Regulators.

2. Issue: Similar classification dispute for a subsequent period.
- Details: A show cause notice was issued demanding Central Excise duty, leading to an Order-in-Original classifying the goods under Chapter 38. The manufacturer appealed, challenging the decision.
- Judgment: The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original, prompting the manufacturer to approach the Tribunal.

3. Analysis of Arguments:
- Manufacturer's Argument: Revenue indirectly accepted the goods as Plant Growth Enhancers, arguing that chemical composition analysis was Revenue's responsibility.
- Revenue's Argument: Emphasized the necessity of chemical composition analysis for accurate classification.

4. Decision:
- The Tribunal found the issue common in both appeals, emphasizing the importance of chemical examination to differentiate between Plant Growth Enhancers and Regulators.
- The Tribunal set aside the previous orders and directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to conduct a chemical examination through the departmental laboratory to determine the classification accurately.
- The Tribunal cited various legal precedents and explanatory notes to guide the classification process.

5. Conclusion:
- The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further examination based on chemical analysis, ensuring a proper classification of the goods manufactured by the appellant.
- The appeals were disposed of with the direction to conduct a thorough examination for accurate classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.