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 classifies Zymegold Plus & Dripzyme as fertilizers, not plant growth regulators, under CSH 3101</h1> <h3>M/s. Godrej Agrovet Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Kolhapur</h3> M/s. Godrej Agrovet Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Kolhapur - TMI Issues Involved:1. Classification of products Zymegold Plus and Dripzyme.2. Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions.3. Nature and composition of the products.4. Relevance of trade parlance and expert opinions.5. Comparison with Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.Summary:1. Classification of Products:The core issue was whether Zymegold Plus and Dripzyme should be classified under CTH 3808 as 'Plant Growth Regulator' or under CTH 3101 as 'Fertilizer'. The Tribunal noted that fertilizers provide essential nutrients required for plant growth, whereas plant growth regulators modify plant growth without providing nutrition. The Tribunal found that Zymegold Plus and Dripzyme contain significant amounts of nutrients, including seaweed extract, which aligns with the characteristics of fertilizers.2. Applicability of Previous Tribunal Decisions:The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the appellant's own case (Final Order No. A/85667-85668/2022 dated 29.7.2022), where it was held that Zymegold Plus, despite containing plant growth regulators in trace amounts, is classifiable as a fertilizer under CSH 3101. This precedent was found applicable to the current appeals, reinforcing the classification of the products as fertilizers.3. Nature and Composition of the Products:The Tribunal examined the composition of Zymegold Plus and Dripzyme, noting the presence of seaweed extract and other nutrients. The detailed composition analysis provided by the appellants showed that these products are primarily nutrient-based, supporting their classification as fertilizers. The Tribunal emphasized that the presence of micronutrients does not convert these products into plant growth regulators.4. Relevance of Trade Parlance and Expert Opinions:The Tribunal considered trade parlance and expert opinions, highlighting that the products are commercially known and marketed as fertilizers. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's stance that the popular understanding of a product by its users should guide its classification, rather than scientific or technical definitions.5. Comparison with Fertilizer Control Order, 1985:The Tribunal rejected the department's attempt to use the definition of 'fertilizer' from the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, for reclassification purposes. It was stated that definitions in unrelated statutes cannot be the basis for changing classification under the Excise Act, which is a complete code in itself.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that Zymegold Plus and Dripzyme are fertilizers and should be classified under CSH 3101. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law.
TaxTMI 