<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (9) TMI 1655 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458863</link>
    <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad classified amino acid-based products Siapton 10L and Isabion under ETI 3101 00 99 as fertilizers rather than plant growth regulators under ETI 3808 93 40. The Tribunal held that mode of application (soil or foliar) is not determinative for classification. Both products contain amino acids and peptides that provide nutrients for plant growth without altering physiological processes, distinguishing them from growth regulators. Expert opinions and supplier statements confirmed these are bio-stimulants/organic fertilizers. The reference was answered favoring fertilizer classification, with papers returned to Division Bench for merit-based appeal decisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 18:59:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778414" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 1655 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458863</link>
      <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad classified amino acid-based products Siapton 10L and Isabion under ETI 3101 00 99 as fertilizers rather than plant growth regulators under ETI 3808 93 40. The Tribunal held that mode of application (soil or foliar) is not determinative for classification. Both products contain amino acids and peptides that provide nutrients for plant growth without altering physiological processes, distinguishing them from growth regulators. Expert opinions and supplier statements confirmed these are bio-stimulants/organic fertilizers. The reference was answered favoring fertilizer classification, with papers returned to Division Bench for merit-based appeal decisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458863</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>