Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 728 - CESTAT AHMEDABADClassification of goods - MIRACULAN (which primarily contains Traicontanol equivalent to 0.05% of weight) - be classified under Chapter Sub-heading no. 3808 3040 as Plant Growth Regulator or under Chapter Sub-heading no. 3808 93 40 as plant growth promoter? - rejection of refund claims under the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The primary basis of the department to hold that subject product ‘MIRACULAN’ is a plant growth regulator is on the basis of the chemical test report given by departmental chemical examiner which says that the product contains Traicontanol equivalent to 0.05% by weight and may be considered as a plant growth regulator. As per the certificate of registration obtained by the appellant from the Directorate of the Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, Faridabad which works under the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India as per requirement of Section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The registration which have been obtained by the appellant is for the Traicontanol 0.05% wherein, this product namely Traicontanol has been considered as insecticide. Also, on considering the literature which have been pointed out by the learned advocate for the appellant wherein, the Traicontanol 0.05% EC has been considered as the plant growth promoter. Since product ‘MIRACULAN’ is based on Traicontanol 0.05% EC which is nothing but an insecticide as it requires a registration under Section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 with the Directorate of the Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, Faridabad. From the literature as well as from the registration obtained by the appellant, it is found that the product ‘MIRACULAN’ which is nothing but Traicontanol equivalent to 0.05% EC is a product of the insecticides. Whether the ‘MIRACULAN’ can be considered as a plant growth regulator? - HELD THAT:- On going through the relevant entries of the Central Excise Tariff i.e. 380810 and 380830, it becomes clear that plant growth regulators are the products which fall under the category of Herbicides, anti sprouting products and plant growth regulators classifiable under sub heading 380830 while the product which is under consideration is nothing but a Traicontanol which is an insecticide and thus, we are of the view that the product insecticide will clearly fall under the sub heading 380810. The products which are of nature of Herbicides, anti sprouting products and plant growth regulators fall under chapter heading no. 380830. In view of the above, the product ‘MIRACULAN’ which primarily contents of Traicontanol which is an insecticide will certainly cannot be considered as a plant growth regulator. Reliance placed in the case of BAHAR AGROCHEM & FEEDS PVT LTD., VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE [2011 (2) TMI 600 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - It can be seen from the above decision of the tribunal that the similar product which contains Traicontanol has been classified as insecticide and not a plant growth regulator and since the issue at hand is similar to the one decided by the above decision, the product ‘MIRACULAN’ which primarily contains Traicontanol 0.05% by weight is a product under the category of Insecticides and cannot be considered as the plant growth regulator. Appeal allowed.
|