TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules against appellant in product classification case, directs pre-deposit.</h1> <h3>KARNATAKA AGRO CHEMICALS Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE</h3> KARNATAKA AGRO CHEMICALS Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE - 2012 (281) E.L.T. 607 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues Involved:1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.2. Classification of products as 'Plant Growth Regulators' (PGRs) or 'Other Fertilizers'.3. Examination of the presence of Nitrogen as an essential constituent.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Waiver of Pre-deposit and Stay of Recovery:The applications sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for duty amounts totaling Rs. 26,16,00,751/- and a total penalty of Rs. 1.5 crores. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- within eight weeks, considering the appellant's sound financial position as evidenced by their financial statements as of 31-3-2011.2. Classification of Products:The primary issue was the classification of the appellant's products under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Commissioner classified the products as 'Plant Growth Regulators' (PGRs) under SH 3808.20, rejecting the appellant's claim that they should be classified as 'Other Fertilizers' under heading 31.05, which attracts a 'nil' rate of duty. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had previously remanded the issue, emphasizing the need to examine whether the presence of 0.31% Nitrogen changed the product classification.3. Examination of Nitrogen Presence:The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner had examined the process of manufacture and concluded that the presence of 0.31% Nitrogen was not sufficient to classify the product under SH 3105.00. The Commissioner found that Nitrogen was not an essential constituent but was added artificially. The Tribunal referred to Note-6 in Chapter 31, which requires the presence of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, or Potassium as essential constituents for classification under heading 31.05. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's finding that the minuscule presence of Nitrogen did not meet this requirement.The Tribunal also noted that the products were manufactured by mixing various chemicals, many of which were not recognized as fertilizers. The appellant had not shown why non-fertilizer chemicals were included. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not successfully rebutted the Commissioner's findings and emphasized that the Supreme Court had indicated that the product was essentially a PGR.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not have a prima facie case against the classification of the products under heading 38.08 and the consequential demand of duty. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 5,00,00,000/- and granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the penalty and the balance amount of duty, subject to compliance.
TaxTMI 