Classification of hoofs and horn meal as organic manure, not chemical fertilizer, upheld on evidentiary grounds.

Hoofs and horn meal were held not to fall within the definition of chemical fertilizer because the record did not show any proved chemical composition. The Tribunal relied on the evidence, including the analysis certificate and authoritative material, to classify the goods as organic manure. A departmental circular alone was found insufficient to establish that the goods were chemical fertilizer, and in the absence of rebuttal evidence the factual finding was not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether hoofs and horn meal falls within the definition of chemical fertilizer.

Analysis: The Tribunal had examined the evidence on record, including authoritative material and the analysis certificate, and found that hoofs and horn meal did not contain any proved chemical composition. The assessing authority relied only on a departmental circular, which by itself was insufficient to establish that the goods were chemical fertilizer. In the absence of rebuttal evidence from the department, there was no basis to disturb the Tribunal's factual finding that the goods were organic manure and not chemical fertilizer.

Conclusion: Hoofs and horn meal do not fall within the definition of chemical fertilizer. The finding of the Tribunal was upheld, and the revision petitions were dismissed.

---