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>Product classification appeal: Tribunal rules on Gronimix Neem Manure under CETA</h1> <h3>NEEM BIOCIDE PLANT Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & ST., VADODARA-I</h3> NEEM BIOCIDE PLANT Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & ST., VADODARA-I - 2014 (299) E.L.T. 497 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:Classification of the product 'Gronimix Neem Blended Organic Manure' under CETA 3101 00 99 or CETA 3808 99 10.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of the product 'Gronimix Neem Blended Organic Manure' manufactured by the appellant. The appellant claimed the product to be a fertilizer under CETA 3101 00 99, while the show cause notice proposed its classification under CETA 3808 99 10. The adjudicating authority classified the product under 3808 99 10, confirming the demand and imposing penalties on the appellants.The appellant argued that the manufacturing process involved selecting Neem fruit and seed, obtaining Neem oil and cake, segregating with an Expeller, mixing Neem Cake with Fine Dust, and producing Gronimix without adding any chemicals. The product was marketed as 'Gronimix Neem Organic Manure' and sold based on its properties and dosages as a manure. Therefore, the appellant contended that the product should be classified as a fertilizer under Chapter 31 of the CET Act, 1988.On the other hand, the Authorized Representative reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority, supporting the correct classification under 3808 99 10 and the decision on demand and penalties.Upon reviewing the submissions and case records, the Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority defined a fertilizer as a substance added to soil to supply plant nutrients essential for plant growth. The literature and pamphlets indicated that the product regulated the release of nitrogen from fertilizers and controlled pests, suggesting a dual functionality beyond traditional fertilizers. As the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for a complete waiver of dues, conditions were imposed. Appellant No. 1 was directed to pre-deposit Rs. 8 lakhs within 8 weeks, with a stay on the recovery of remaining amounts and penalties pending appeal disposal.The judgment was pronounced on 19-7-2013 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, with the decision outlined by the judges Shri M.V. Ravindran and H.K. Thakur.
TaxTMI 