RANADEY MICRONUTRIENTS vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

C.A. No.-005404-005404 - 1993Supreme Court10 September 19965 pages
For Respondent: V. K. VERMA
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the later circular, issued under Section 37B, was binding on the revenue and mandated the classification of micronutrients as fertilizers. The court emphasized the importance of uniformity and discipline in following such circulars.

What were the facts?

The appellants manufactured micronutrients, and the Excise department sought to classify them as 'plant growth regulators' under heading 38.08. Initially, a circular clarified this classification, but a later circular, issued under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, reclassified micronutrients as 'other fertilizers' under heading 31.05.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, particularly the later one under Section 37B, were binding on the revenue for the classification of micronutrients, and if so, whether micronutrients should be classified as fertilizers or plant growth regulators.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 5 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5 PETITIONER: M/S. RANADEY MICRONUTRIENTS Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/09/1996 BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) VENKATASWAMI K. (J) ACT: HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5405 OF 1993 O R D E R These appeals concern the classification of micronutrients for the purposes of Excise duty.

Micronutrients are mixtures of soluble salts of elements like calcium, magnesium, manganese, zinc, iron, copper, boron and molybdenum. They are mixed in stated percentages to get a formulated product which assists the growth of plants. The appellants manufacture micronutrients.

The facts being similar, we set out those of one of the two appeals.

During the period October, 1989, to November, 1989, samples of micronutrients were drawn and tested by the Deputy Chief Chemist of the union of India who opined that micronutrients were not "plant growth regulators". However, on 6th November, 1989, the Collector of Central Excise issued to t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →