TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in not considering the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the proper perspective and in not following the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court? (2) Whether the decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal and the Ld. Commissioner are perverse in as much as the report of the Committee appointed by the Ld. Commissioner has been disregarded without any basis? (3) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has committed an error in not considering that the Ld. Commissioner is bound by the Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs ("CBEC") on the issue of classification of Micronutrients and which was also referred to by the Supreme Court in its remand order, enclosed as ANNEXURE-F? (4) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in not considering the ingredients required for classification of the subject mixtures of micronutrients as Plant Growth Regulators under CSH 3808.20 as specified by the CBEC Circular dated 19.05.1998 and 06.04.2016? (5) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal ought to have referred the matter to the President of the Tribunal to constitute a Larger Bench for the determination of the classification of the micronutrients if i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Court, by order dated 15.05.2008, after examining the contentions urged and recording findings on various aspects, while remanding, issued directions to the Commissioner for further consideration. 3.4 Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner of Central Excise, in order to give effect to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, constituted a Committee of Officers to examine the process of manufacture. The Committee submitted its report. Thereafter, the Commissioner decided to conduct an inspection personally and accordingly visited the factory premises and prepared a report. Further, the Commissioner addressed a letter to the Director of Agriculture seeking an expert opinion on the samples. 3.5 The Commissioner, by order dated 31.03.2010, concluded that the Nitrogen contained in the impugned product is a pretence. Aggrieved by the said order, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, under the impugned order dated 22.12.2023, confirmed the findings of the Commissioner. 3.6 Contending that the conclusion reached by the Commissioner is contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Assessee preferred W.P. No. 3838/2024. In the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Revenue, submits that the issue pertains to classification of the product and, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the following judgments: (i) (2019) 9 SCC 563: Commissioner of Customs vs. Motorola India Ltd. (ii) (1993) 4 SCC 320: Naveen Chemicals MFG. and Trading Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs. (iii) (2017) 13 SCC 1: Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties and others. (iv) (2012) 13 GTR 240: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Mangalore Refineries and Petrochemicals Ltd. (v) 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4245: Commissioner of Service Tax, Bengaluru vs. Bridgestone financial Services. (vi) (2019) SCC OnLine Bom. 5162: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Reliance Media Works Ltd. and others. (vii) 2012 SCC OnLine All 1309: Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Eco Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. 5.1 Learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that unless the contents of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, or Potassium are demonstrated to be essential constitu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned product(s) is a mixture of various inorganic substances and, therefore, it is for the adjudicating authority to go into composition and find out whether 0.31% of nitrogen would convert PGR into a nutrient falling under CH 31.05. Whether with addition of 0.31% of nitrogen, the PGR becomes "other fertilisers" in CSH 3105.00 is the question which needs to be examined by the adjudicating authority as it is the case of the Department that the assessee has added nitrogen only as a pretence so that the impugned product(s) could be classified as "other fertiliser" under CSH 3105.00." 7.2 It is observed that the only question is whether the impugned product contains Nitrogen as an essential constituent. It is further observed that nutrients play a major role in plant growth, whereas Plant Growth Regulators (PGRs) play a restrictive role, and that PGRs do not contain Nitrogen, Phosphorous, or Potassium. 7.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court found it necessary to ascertain whether the presence of more than 0.31% of Nitrogen in the impugned product would render it classifiable as "other fertilizers." While observing that, in essence, the impugned product is a PGR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hedule III and Organic fertilizers specified in Schedule IV." "2(n) "mixture of fertilizers" means a mixture of fertilizers made by physical mixing two or more fertilizers with or without inert material in physical or granular from and includes a mixture of NPK fertilizers, a mixture of micronutrient fertilizers and a mixture of NPK with micronutrient fertilizers" 8.4 On a bare reading of the definitions of "fertilizer" and "mixture of fertilizers," it appears that compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would require expert opinion. Further reference is made to Rules 12 and 15 and Chapter VII-Enforcement Authorities. It is stated that the State Government is the competent authority to implement the 1985 Order. 8.5 The Commissioner, in paragraph 45, has concluded as under: "45. At the time of the visit as observed by me and as explained by the production manager of the factory, it is seen that, various raw materials, including urea, are mixed manually, grinded, sieved, again mixed and packed. As already mentioned the entire process is devoid of any chemical reaction and no chemically defined compound is coming in to existence. As per the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... support of the said submission do not require detailed consideration. 9. As we have held that the conclusion of the Commissioner is not in conformity with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case of the Assessee insofar as classification cannot be accepted at this stage. The grievance urged pertains to noncompliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and adjudication in violation thereof. 9.1 In view of our conclusion that the order of the Commissioner is not in conformity with the said directions, we deem it appropriate to direct the Commissioner to re-adjudicate the matter in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It appears that the direction to the adjudicating authority to undertake the exercise has been understood to mean that the adjudicating authority itself should carry out the entire fact-finding exercise, even in areas requiring expert knowledge. Having regard to the scientific and complex issues involved, which necessitate expert assistance, we clarify that the Commissioner/adjudicating authority would be at liberty to seek expert opinion. 9.2 It is not in dispute that the impugned product is certified by....