TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>'Zymegold' Classified as 'Fertilizer' under Tariff Act</h1> The Tribunal classified 'Zymegold' as a 'fertilizer' under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, based on the presence of nitrogen and chlorine, aligning ... Classification of goods - Zymegold - whether classified as ‘plant growth regulator’ under heading 310100 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or as ‘fertilisers’? - Held that:- In the context of unscientific approach to re-classification, there have been occasions of non-conformity to settled principles that should govern adjudication, appeal and remand which has been the primary contention in the proceedings before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority has found the blatant disregard thereof to be sufficient to hold in favour of the present respondents. The test result, on which the scientist-expert has ventured to classify the product, does not dispute the presence of nitrogen and chlorine. That should suffice to characterize the product as ‘fertilizer’ based on the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II v. Aries Agro-vet Industries Ltd [2018 (6) TMI 1070 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:Classification of product 'Zymegold' as 'plant growth regulator' or 'fertilizer' under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.Analysis:The appeal by Revenue challenged the order-in-appeal setting aside the classification of 'Zymegold' as a 'plant growth regulator' instead of 'fertilizer'. The issue arose from the differential duty, interest, and penalty dropped by the original authority. The first appellate authority's decision was based on non-compliance with specific remand directions, leading to a re-adjudication of the classification issue. The Revenue contended that the product was marketed as a 'plant growth regulator' and should be classified as such based on common parlance tests. The denial of cross-examination was justified under relevant legal precedents. The Revenue argued that the remand terms were fulfilled, and the dismissal of original authority's findings was improper.The first appellate authority's issues were not appealed by the Revenue, leading to further dispute. The controversy over classifying goods as 'fertilizers' or 'plant growth regulators' has been ongoing, highlighting non-conformity to established principles. The Tribunal, in resolving the classification, emphasized the presence of nitrogen and chlorine in the product, aligning it with fertilizer classification based on precedent judgments. The intended use of 'micronutrients' and 'macronutrients' for agriculture as fertilizers was crucial, and the product's classification as 'plant growth regulator' was deemed incorrect.The Tribunal's detailed findings concluded that 'Micronutrients' are not 'plant growth regulators' and should be classified based on intended use. Specific compounds like nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium, even if not labeled as 'fertilizer,' are classifiable as such unless deliberately excluded. The presence of nitrogen in chelates warranted classification under heading 3105 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing the Aries Agro-vet Industries Ltd case as precedent.In summary, the judgment resolved the classification issue of 'Zymegold' as a 'fertilizer' based on established principles and legal precedents, dismissing the Revenue's appeal due to non-compliance with remand directions and the product's essential characteristics aligning with fertilizer classification.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
