2018 (11) TMI 1512

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as found the blatant disregard thereof to be sufficient to hold in favour of the present respondents. The test result, on which the scientist-expert has ventured to classify the product, does not dispute the presence of nitrogen and chlorine. That should suffice to characterize the product as ‘fertilizer’ based on the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II v. Aries Agro-vet Industries Ltd [2018 (6) TMI 1070 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) And Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) Shri S Hasija, Superintendent (AR) for appellant Shri Yogesh Patki, Advocate for respondent ORDER Per: C J Mathew This appeal of Revenue lies against order-in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... finding in view of the detailed discussion in the order of the original authority and despite compliance, to the extent possible, with directions in order of remand. It is also his contention that respondent marketed the product as 'plant growth regulator' and, by the 'common parlance test' laid down in decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd [2012 (286) ELT 321 (SC)] and in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd [2009 (286) ELT 321 (SC)], cannot be classified elsewhere. It is further contended that cross-examination of the Deputy Chief Chemist had been rightly denied in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble High Co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to go into those submissions but, relying on admitted facts in the present dispute, instead resolve the classification itself in the light of precedent judgments. The test result, on which the scientist-expert has ventured to classify the product, does not dispute the presence of nitrogen and chlorine. That should suffice to characterize the product as 'fertilizer' based on the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II v. Aries Agro-vet Industries Ltd [final order no. 88615/2018 dated 31st May 2018 in appeal no. E/709/2007]. The principles that govern coverage as 'fertilizer' or as 'plant growth regulator' has been examined at length thus '5. Therefore, we may sum up our findings thus: i. 'Micronutrients' and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X