9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1025 - HC - Central ExciseClassification of goods - manufacture of agrochemical products - Plant Growth Regulator and falling under Chapter heading 3808 or not - As per the circulars issued by the CBEC, the product in question was required to be compound and not mixture . - CESTAT referred the matter to the Larger Bench - Whether the decision rendered by the Bench in Northern Mineral (supra) could be said to be so conclusive a decision as to leave no room for further examination of this Bench? HELD THAT - This stage that the product in question before the Delhi Bench in case of NORTHERN MINERALS PVT. LIMITED VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EX., DELHI 1996 (7) TMI 387 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI Dhanzyme and therefore, the majority discussion in the case of Northern Mineral (supra) was based upon the ingredients characteristics and constitution of the said product. Whereas in the instant case, the product is Siapton 10L. Thus, both the products are different. The Delhi Bench in case of Northern Mineral (supra) has recorded submission of the counsel for the appellant therein. The Delhi Bench in case of Northern Mineral did refer to the dictionary meaning and various discussion on plant, growth, regulator and plant, growth promoter to cullout fine distinction between the two. But the research on this aspect incorporated in para 7.3 was bearing in mind the product Dhanzyme and its ingredients, applicability, methodology of its application and usage. In other words, it can well be said that the discussion and research was producentic viz. Dhanzyme . It is required to be noted that the decision of the Court and the tribunals are to be read not as textbook, but required to be read and applied in light of the facts prevalent thereafter. Bearing the aforesaid sentence of the tribunal occurring in the paragraph, which this Bench has found to be uncalled for, unwarranted and not appropriate. The discussion in respect of the product in question based upon the prima facie opinion of the tribunal requiring the tribunal to refer the matter to Larger Bench cannot be said to be so prejudicial to the petitioner to call for any interference - The Court hasten to add here that the Court is also of the view that the learned counsel for the respondent is not wholly unjustified in pressing into service the submission and pleadings of the respondents' affidavit indicating that in such a scenario the Court should be slow in interfering with such interim order. The Court had to examine the judgment of the Delhi Bench of CESTAT in NORTHERN MINERALS PVT. LIMITED. The plain and simple reading thereof would indicate that there was a discussion, which can be said to be a product specific or producentic viz. Dhanzyme and supposing there was a case in respect of Dhanzyme or a product having all the similar ingredients that a Dhanzyme and also applicability perhaps there would have been no action or permissibility in the tribunal to make any reference as it would not be permissible at all. The Court has already deprecated the tribunal's reference to the Apex Court in highlighted sentence, but that in itself would not render entire order of the tribunal impugned in this petition vulnerable as it was a duty cast upon the petitioner to establish imminently that the product in question in this petition being Siapton 10L was almost similar to Dhanzyme in its ingredients, applicability and construction so as to make the decision of Northern Mineral binding upon the tribunal for preventing it from referring it to Larger Bench. The Court is of the view that the order impugned is not in any manner prejudicial to the petitioner and is only an interim order and making reference to the Larger Bench and pursuant thereof, the Larger Bench was constituted and met once, but in view of the pendency of this petition, deferred the hearing. Therefore, without any further elaboration, suffice it to say that the order impugned does not deserve to be interfered with in any manner and the discussion touching upon the merits made in this matter is purely for examining the challenge to the order impugned and the same shall have no bearing either for consideration by the Larger Bench or Tribunal Bench, where the matter is argued on merits - Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the product "Siapton 10L" under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) can refer a matter to a larger bench despite a Supreme Court decision on a similar issue. 3. The applicability and binding nature of Supreme Court judgments and circulars issued by the Board. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in matters of classification and valuation under the Central Excise Act. 5. Maintainability of the writ petition challenging an interim order of the CESTAT. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of the product "Siapton 10L" under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing agrochemical products, classified "Siapton 10L" under Chapter Sub Heading 31010099 as a fertilizer. The Customs authorities initially classified the product differently for Basic Customs Duty and Counter Veiling Duty (CVD). The product was later classified under Chapter Heading 3101 for CVD purposes by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). However, during an audit in 2008, the audit party contended that "Siapton 10L" should be classified as a Plant Growth Regulator under Chapter Heading 3808, leading to several Show Cause Notices and demands for duty, interest, and penalties. 2. Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) can refer a matter to a larger bench despite a Supreme Court decision on a similar issue: The petitioner argued that the issue was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Northern Minerals Limited, where a similar product was classified as a fertilizer. The petitioner contended that the CESTAT could not reopen an issue concluded by the Supreme Court. However, the CESTAT referred the matter to a larger bench, questioning whether a plant growth promoter must simultaneously inhibit growth to qualify as a plant growth regulator under Heading 3808 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. The applicability and binding nature of Supreme Court judgments and circulars issued by the Board: The petitioner emphasized that the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Department's appeal on merits in the Northern Minerals case should be binding. They also cited circulars issued by the Board, which clarified that products containing nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium must be classified as fertilizers. The petitioner argued that the CESTAT's decision to refer the matter to a larger bench was contrary to these established precedents and circulars. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in matters of classification and valuation under the Central Excise Act: The respondents contended that the High Court should not interfere with the CESTAT's interim order referring the matter to a larger bench, as the issue pertained to classification and valuation, which are within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act. They argued that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised sparingly in such matters. 5. Maintainability of the writ petition challenging an interim order of the CESTAT: The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the CESTAT's order was merely an interim order referring the matter to a larger bench and did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. They contended that the petitioner had an appropriate legal remedy under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act if an adverse final order was passed by the CESTAT. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the CESTAT's order referring the matter to a larger bench did not warrant interference. It emphasized that the Supreme Court's decisions are binding, but the facts of the present case were distinguishable from the Northern Minerals case. The High Court also noted that the CESTAT's order was an interim order and did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The petition was disposed of, and the notice was discharged.
|
