https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2693 Classification of the product 'Vipul Booster' depended on whether it was an insecticide or a plant growth regulator, and the Tribunal was found to have overlooked material evidence relevant to that question. The product had been registered as an insecticide with the Directorate of Plant Protection, and compliance with the Insecticide Act, 1968, including the certificate issued under that Act, required examination. The competing claim that the certificate related only to one ingredient also called for factual and legal reconsideration. The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2693 Classification of the product 'Vipul Booster' depended on whether it was an insecticide or a plant growth regulator, and the Tribunal was found to have overlooked material evidence relevant to that question. The product had been registered as an insecticide with the Directorate of Plant Protection, and compliance with the Insecticide Act, 1968, including the certificate issued under that Act, required examination. The competing claim that the certificate related only to one ingredient also called for factual and legal reconsideration. The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2693