Coordination compound classification under Chapter 29 prevails, and Customs classification does not bind Central Excise authorities.

A separately chemically defined coordination compound was classified under Chapter 29 rather than Chapter 31 because the chapter notes exclude such compounds from the fertilizer heading and include coordination compounds within Chapter 29. The product described as chelated iron and chelated zinc was therefore treated as a distinct chemical compound, not a fertilizer, and the contrary classification was rejected. A Customs classification did not bind the Central Excise authorities, as both authorities were treated as independent for classification purposes. The appeal thus failed on both classification issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the product, described as chelated iron and chelated zinc, was classifiable under Chapter 31 as a fertilizer or under Chapter 29 as a separate chemically defined coordination compound. (ii) Whether the classification adopted by the Customs authorities could bind the Central Excise authorities for the purpose of classification.

Issue (i): Whether the product, described as chelated iron and chelated zinc, was classifiable under Chapter 31 as a fertilizer or under Chapter 29 as a separate chemically defined coordination compound.

Analysis: The product was described in the laboratory reports as a coordination compound and as chelated iron or chelated zinc. On that basis, it was treated as a separately defined chemical rather than a mixture. The earlier view placing the product under Chapter 31 was held to have overlooked the effect of the Chapter 29 and Chapter 31 notes, particularly the exclusion of separate chemically defined compounds from Chapter 31 and the inclusion of coordination compounds under Chapter 29. The view that the product fell under Chapter 31 was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The product was held classifiable under Chapter 29 and not under Chapter 31, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the classification adopted by the Customs authorities could bind the Central Excise authorities for the purpose of classification.

Analysis: The two authorities were treated as independent, and a classification made by one authority was held not to control the classification decision of the other. Any error by one authority was not required to be followed by the other.

Conclusion: The Customs classification did not bind the Central Excise authorities, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the disputed product was treated as a Chapter 29 coordination compound, and the reliance on the Customs classification did not alter that result.

Ratio Decidendi: A separately chemically defined coordination compound is classifiable under Chapter 29, and a classification made by Customs does not bind Central Excise authorities when determining excise classification.

---