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>Amino acid products Siapton 10L and Isabion classified as fertilizers under ETI 3101 00 99 not plant growth regulators</h1> <h3>M/s. P.I. Industries Limited (Formerly M/s. Isagro (Asia) Agrochemicals Pvt. Ltd.) ; M/s. Agro Pack; Shri Parth H. Patel Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-II, Surat</h3> M/s. P.I. Industries Limited (Formerly M/s. Isagro (Asia) Agrochemicals Pvt. Ltd.) ; M/s. Agro Pack; Shri Parth H. Patel Versus Commissioner of Central ... Issues Involved:1. Classification of products 'Siapton 10L' and 'Isabion' under the Central Excise Tariff: whether as 'fertilizers' under ETI 3101 00 99 or as 'plant growth regulators' under ETI 3808 93 40.2. Determination of whether the mode of application (soil vs. foliar) affects classification.3. Distinction between 'plant growth promoters' and 'plant growth regulators.'Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Products:The primary issue in the appeals was whether 'Siapton 10L' and 'Isabion' should be classified as 'fertilizers' under ETI 3101 00 99 or as 'plant growth regulators' under ETI 3808 93 40. P.I. Industries and Agro Pack classified their products as fertilizers, arguing that they provide nutritional support to plants without altering physiological processes. The Tribunal examined the composition and usage of both products. 'Siapton 10L' consists mainly of amino acids and peptides, while 'Isabion' contains a mixture of amino acids and peptides with nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Both products were described as bio-stimulants, which are recognized as fertilizers by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Tribunal concluded that these products provide essential nutrients, thereby promoting plant growth, and do not alter physiological processes, thus classifying them as fertilizers under ETI 3101 00 99.2. Mode of Application:The Division Bench initially considered the mode of application-whether the products were applied to soil or directly to plants-as a potential determinant for classification. However, the Tribunal found that the mode of application (soil vs. foliar) is not a valid criterion for distinguishing between fertilizers and plant growth regulators. Both fertilizers and plant growth regulators can be applied through soil or foliar methods. The Tribunal emphasized that the classification should be based on the product's function and composition rather than the application method.3. Distinction Between Plant Growth Promoters and Plant Growth Regulators:The Tribunal clarified the distinction between 'plant growth promoters' and 'plant growth regulators.' A plant growth promoter, such as a fertilizer, provides nutrients that promote plant growth without inhibiting or altering physiological processes. In contrast, a plant growth regulator can inhibit, promote, or otherwise alter physiological processes in plants. The Tribunal concluded that the products in question do not alter physiological processes and are therefore not plant growth regulators. The Tribunal rejected the Division Bench's view that a plant growth promoter could be equated with a plant growth regulator.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that 'Siapton 10L' and 'Isabion' are fertilizers classified under ETI 3101 00 99, not plant growth regulators under ETI 3808 93 40. The Tribunal emphasized that plant growth promoters and plant growth regulators serve different functions, and the products in question merely provide nutrients without altering physiological processes. The reference was answered accordingly, and the appeals were directed to be decided on merits by the Division Bench.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
