Bio-fertilizer classification and manufacture principles determine Dhanzyme's excise treatment; repacking alone was not manufacture.

Mere repacking of bulk Biozyme into smaller retail packs did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act because no new commodity with a different character, use or commercial identity emerged, and Chapter 31 contained no deeming provision treating such repacking as manufacture. The liquid Dhanzyme was therefore treated as a bio-fertilizer under Chapter 31, not as a plant growth regulator under Chapter 38. The granular form, produced by spraying the liquid product on bentonite clay granules, was also held to be a bio-fertilizer: although the process amounted to manufacture, the product's essential character remained nutritional support for plant growth, and traces of hormones did not convert it into a chemically defined regulatory compound.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the liquid product sold as Dhanzyme, being only repacked bulk Biozyme, amounted to manufacture and was classifiable as a plant growth regulator; (ii) Whether Dhanzyme in granular form, obtained by spraying liquid product over bentonite clay granules, was a bio-fertilizer or a plant growth regulator.

Issue (i): Whether the liquid product sold as Dhanzyme, being only repacked bulk Biozyme, amounted to manufacture and was classifiable as a plant growth regulator.

Analysis: The bulk product received from the suppliers was already classified under Chapter 31 and the Department had not shown any basis to disturb that classification. The appellants merely repacked the bulk product into smaller retail packs without bringing into existence a commodity having a different character, use or commercial identity. In the absence of any Chapter Note in Chapter 31 creating a legal fiction treating such repacking as manufacture, the process did not satisfy Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The liquid product was also found to contain nutrients and to function as a bio-fertilizer rather than as a plant growth regulator.

Conclusion: The liquid Dhanzyme was not excisable and the demand of duty on it was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Dhanzyme in granular form, obtained by spraying liquid product over bentonite clay granules, was a bio-fertilizer or a plant growth regulator.

Analysis: The granular product was applied to soil, unlike the liquid product, and therefore had a different character and use. That process amounted to manufacture within Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, on the material placed, the product was not shown to be a chemically defined plant growth regulator. The product contained amino acids and nutrients, and the evidence indicated that it promoted plant growth by providing nutritional support. The presence of traces of hormones did not alter its essential character as a bio-fertilizer. On that basis, the product was held to fall under Chapter 31 rather than Chapter 38.

Conclusion: The granular Dhanzyme was a bio-fertilizer classifiable under Chapter 31 and no duty was leviable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalties could not survive because the disputed products were not classifiable as plant growth regulators under Chapter 38, and the appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere repacking of a bulk product already classifiable under Chapter 31 does not amount to manufacture in the absence of a specific deeming provision, and a product that essentially provides nutritional support and promotes plant growth as a bio-fertilizer cannot be classified as a plant growth regulator under Chapter 38 unless it is shown to be a distinct chemically defined regulatory compound.

---