Case Details: Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-II vs. Agro Pack (2025) 36 Centax 272 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Manoj Misra & Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
- S/Shri N. Venkataraman, A.S.G., V.C. Bharathi, Arkaj Kumar, Padmesh Mishra, Bhuvan Kapoor, Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocates & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The dispute concerned the classification of the product ‘Isabion’, where the assessee claimed classification under Central Excise Tariff Entry 3101 00 99 as fertilizer, while the Department contended that the product was classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Entry 3808 93 40 as a plant growth regulator. The issue was initially referred by a Division Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to a Larger Bench, which ruled that Isabion merited classification under Tariff Entry 3101 00 99 and not under Tariff Entry 3808 93 40. Relying upon the said Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal, in the impugned final order, held that the subject product was classifiable under Tariff Entry 3101 00 99. Aggrieved thereby, the Department filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no palpable error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Court noted that the Tribunal had followed the decision rendered by the Larger Bench holding the product classifiable under Tariff Entry 3101 00 99 as fertilizer. It was held that the appeal, filed with a delay of 248 days, was liable to be dismissed both on merits and on the ground of delay. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the classification under Tariff Entry 3101 00 99 stood upheld in favour of the assessee.
List of Cases Cited
- Agro Pack v. Commissioner — (2025) 36 Centax 271 (Tri.-Ahmd) — Affirmed [Para 2]
