2024 (12) TMI 1189 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Rules Zymegold Plus Granules as Fertilizer Under Central Excise Tariff 3101.0099, Not Plant Growth Regulator.

ATUL MANUFACTURERS Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -BHAVNAGAR

The Tribunal concluded that 'Zymegold Plus Granules' should be classified as a fertilizer under Central Excise Tariff item 3101.0099, rejecting the ... Classification of product called ‘Zymegold Plus Granules’ - classifiable under Central Excise Tariff item 3101.0099 as fertilizer or as plant growth regulator under Central Excise Tariff item 3808.9340? - HELD THAT:- The matter stands covered by the coordinate bench decision in relation to the same product in the matter of M/S. GODREJ AGROVET LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST, KOLHAPUR [2023 (5) TMI 299 - CESTAT MUMBAI] wherein the same product i.e. ‘Zymegold Plus’ was involved and it was held that 'The impugned order is liable to be set aside as the products in issue are fertilizers and therefore the appellants have rightly classified their products.' Thus, the product is classifiable as claimed by the party under the Central Excise Tariff Item 31010099 and the same is to be treated as a fertilizer has claimed by them - appeal allowed. Issues: Classification of product 'Zymegold Plus Granules' under Central Excise Tariff item 3101.0099 as fertilizer or plant growth regulator.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the classification of the product 'Zymegold Plus Granules' under the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant claimed it to be a fertilizer, while the department classified it as a plant growth regulator under a different tariff item. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision involving the same product, where it was considered a fertilizer. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of popular understanding over technical definitions in determining classification, citing relevant Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal rejected the department's argument based on the Fertilizer Control Order, stating that unrelated definitions cannot alter classification under the Excise Act, which is a self-contained statute. The Tribunal also highlighted test reports supporting the appellant's claim of the product containing nutrients. Based on these considerations and previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the product should be classified as a fertilizer under the Central Excise Tariff item 3101.0099.The judgment also referenced other cases where products containing similar elements were classified as fertilizers based on the presence of specific nutrients. The Tribunal reiterated that the department's reliance on external definitions for classification was not valid under the Excise Act. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance with specific orders or regulations should not alter the classification determined under the Excise Act. The Tribunal found no reason to differ from its previous decision classifying the product as a fertilizer, especially in the absence of any challenge or stay by the department. The Tribunal also noted the appellant's submission of a test report supporting the product's nutrient content, which the department failed to counter with any conflicting evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order and affirming the classification of the product as a fertilizer under the Central Excise Tariff item 3101.0099.Overall, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the classification issue, emphasizing the importance of popular understanding and consumer perception in determining the classification of products under the Excise Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on previous rulings, test reports, and the lack of substantive evidence from the department to challenge the appellant's classification of the product as a fertilizer.