TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The department felt that the products manufactured by the appellants were plant growth regulators (PGRs), whereas the appellants maintained that they were manufacturing vegetable bio-fertilizer. An investigation was conducted and a sample of 'Pura Kelp Australian Biozyme' was drawn and tested at CRCL, New Delhi. On the basis of the test report of said sample and a letter issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana dt. 27.12.2006 stating that the above products were not fertilizers in terms of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 25,86,505/- along with interest and proposing penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The matter was adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l India Ltd. - 2017 (7) GSTL 234 (Tri.-Chandigarh). 4. Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 6.1 We find that the report of the Chemical Examiner, which was admittedly done in respect of only one of the three products in question, merely states that the product is answering the test of amino acids. However, their exact profile and composition could not be ascertained. On the basis of the literature, which states that one of the ingredients is plant growth hormone, the report concludes that the product is a plant growth regulator. Clearly, the report is inconclusive and the conclusion that the product is plant growth regulator has been made on the basis ....