Agricultural grade zinc sulphate exemption upheld where vague test reports could not outweigh contrary competent findings.

Vague departmental test reports that did not disclose the testing method or the parameters under the controlling standards were insufficient to deny exemption, especially where other competent authorities found the same batches to be agricultural grade and a later chief chemist's test also supported that classification. On that material, the goods were treated as agricultural grade zinc sulphate eligible for exemption under Notification No. 40/85-C.E., and the sulphuric acid used in manufacture was also eligible under Notification No. 81/75-C.E. The duty demands and penalty were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant were agricultural grade zinc sulphate eligible for exemption under Notification No. 40/85-C.E., and whether the sulphuric acid used in their manufacture was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 81/75-C.E.

Analysis: The exemption claim was supported by the fact that the goods were supplied to agricultural departments and cooperative bodies, that the appellant was registered with BIS and under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, and that the goods from the same batches were found to be agricultural grade by the District Agricultural Authorities. The Department relied only on CRCL reports which stated that the samples were zinc sulphate monohydrate but other than agricultural grade. Those reports did not disclose the method of testing or the parameters applied under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 or IS 8249-1976, and were therefore treated as vague. The request for cross-examination of the chemical examiners was also not allowed. In contrast, a later sample tested by the Chief Chemist was found to be agricultural grade. On this material, the earlier departmental reports were found insufficient to dislodge the exemption claim.

Conclusion: The goods were held to be agricultural grade zinc sulphate eligible for exemption under Notification No. 40/85-C.E., and the sulphuric acid used in their manufacture was also held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 81/75-C.E. The duty demands and penalty were unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Department relies on vague test reports that do not disclose the testing method or the applicable parameters under the controlling standards, and contrary material from other competent authorities shows the goods to be of the exempted grade, exemption cannot be denied on the basis of such reports alone.

---