Consistency in classification upheld where an earlier final order treated the product as a bio-fertilizer, not a plant growth regulator.

A prior classification order in the same assessee's case, having attained finality and not been challenged by the Revenue, was followed on the principle of consistency. The product was treated as a bio-fertilizer under Tariff Sub-heading 3808.20 on the basis of the chemical examiner's report and the National Bio-fertilizer Development Centre's report, rather than as a plant growth regulator under Tariff Sub-heading 3808.10. The later authority found no infirmity in adopting the earlier view, and the Revenue's challenge failed, leaving the assessee's classification and nil duty position undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product was classifiable as a plant growth regulator under Tariff Sub-heading 3808.10 or as a bio-fertilizer under Tariff Sub-heading 3808.20.

Analysis: The dispute was treated as covered by an earlier appellate order in the same assessee's case, which had classified the product as a bio-fertilizer after considering the chemical examiner's report and the report of the National Bio-fertilizer Development Centre. That earlier order had not been challenged by the Revenue and had attained acceptance. In these circumstances, the later order merely followed the earlier classification decision, and no infirmity was found in doing so.

Conclusion: The product was not required to be classified as a plant growth regulator; the classification as a bio-fertilizer was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order maintaining the assessee's classification and nil duty position was sustained, with no interference in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier classification order in the same assessee's case has attained finality and has not been reversed, a later authority may properly follow it and maintain the same classification on the principle of consistency.

---