TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 675
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eby, the Commissioner (Appeals) has, inter alia, held that there is no infirmity in the impugned order, in so far as classification is concerned, however, he has set aside penalty. 2. The issue, in brief, is that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of, inter alia, Insecticides, Plant Growth Regulators, Bio-fertilizer etc., cleared as Micronutrient Fertilizers (MNF) classifying it as fertilizer under CETH 3105 9090 in terms of Notification 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and Notification No. 1/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011, whereas, the Department felt that the same would appropriately classifiable under CETH 3808 as Micronutrients are not fertilizers hence cannot fall under Chapter 31. The main ground taken for holding the same as Plant Grow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that there are catena of judgments from Co-ordinate Benches holding that micro nutrients fertilizers and micro nutrients cannot be classified as PGR. He has relied on the following judgments: a) Shivashakthi Bio Technologies Ltd., Vs CCE, Hyderabad [2019 (20) GSTl 243 (Tri-Hyd)] b) CCE, Hyderabad-IV Vs Aries Agrovet Industries Ltd., [2017 (7) GSTL 317 (Tri-Hyd)] c) San Industry Vs CCE, Hyderabad [2018 (11) GSTL 320 (Tri-Hyd)] d) Valagro Biosciences Pvt LTd., Vs CCE, Hyderabad [2020 (3) TMI 908 (CESTAT - Hyd)] e) Hindustan Agro Insecticides, Sovereign Agro Products Pvt Ltd., Vs CCE, Guntur [2017 (7) TMI 846 (CESTAT -Hyd)] This view has been further supported by the decision of the Co-ordinate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....237) ELT 207 (Tri-Chennai)] b) Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai Vs SLV Fertichem [2018 (363) ELT 847 (Tri-Chennai)] He has also relied on the fact that reliance placed on the Supreme Court's order remanding the matter in the case of Karnataka Agro Chemical, supra, is misplaced, since in that case, Hon'ble Court held that deliberate addition of nitrogen in a miniscule quantity does not make them fertilizers, whereas, in the case of the appellant, there is no doubt that fertilizing elements, without which nutrient cannot be applied to the plants, were present as per the Chemical Examiner reports itself. Further, the Supreme Court in the said remand order clearly held that PGRs do not contain N, P and K and they are organ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that though these elements are present, they were not essential and therefore these would not fall under Chapter 31. The relevant para of the judgment is cited below: 16. We also find that the alternative submission by the learned Authorized Representative, that the correct classification should be determined by this Tribunal regardless of the fact that such proposition was not in the show cause notice, is clearly not sustainable. One of the basic principles of natural justice is that "no man shall be condemned unheard". If the proposal is to classify the goods under a different tariff heading than one proposed in the show cause notice, a show cause notice must be issued and adequate opportunity should be provided to the appellan....