Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This appeal is directed against the order, dated 13-11-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay by which he had upheld the order, dated 31-1-1984 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Divn. Ill, Kalyan rejecting as inadmissible claims for refund filed by the appellants, herein, totally amounting to Rs. 2,82,354.33 holding that the goods manufactured by the appellants were excisable under T.I. 68 GET as goods not elsewhere specified in the Tariff. Facts in brief are that the appellants had filed the refund claims on their products, Natrin, Nodin and Bactin during the period March, 1983 to December, 1984 on the ground that the products do not fall under any Tariff Item of the Central Excise because the product cannot be considered as manufactured within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. They, further, explained in the refund claim that Bi-inoculants, such as, Natrin, Nodin, Bactin and mixed varieties are nothing but living micro-organisms present in the soil which the appellants isolated and multiplied under suitable condition and than mixed it with lignite-based carrier for clearance to consumers and hence it was their claim that no manufacturing process was involved and the resultant goods were not excisable. The Assistant Collector rejected the claims on the reasoning that the process of separation of micro-organism from the soil, multiplication thereof and mixing the same with lignite-based carriers is carried on with power and the process satisfies the definition of manufacture as per Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. This order was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) resulting in the present appeal.

4. The submissions, made by the Ld. Counsel and the Ld. D.R., have been carefully considered. The question is whether the preparation of these products Natrin, Nodin, Bactin and mixed variety is the result of a process amounting to manufacture or not. On a perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the starting point is the separation of the micro-organism from the soil. It has been stated in the appeal that micro-organisms are present in all natural ecosystems. An ecosystem consists of biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) factors. Soil is a typical example of such an ecosystem and contains variety of micro-organisms. The appellants isolate the useful microbes from such an ecosystem by a series of procedures purify them and grow them on a large scale. The preparation of microbial biomass is carried out by the appellants in a controlled environment by controlling the temperature of the room chamber where the microbes are grown and for providing seration and agitation to the growing microbial system. When the microbial biomass is ready, it is mixed with lignite and neutralised with calcium carbonate. The microbial biomass is mixed in sterile carrier and the preparation thus obtained (bio-inoculants) is then put in containers for the purpose of protection from environmental factors, preservation and convenience of transport. It is clear that from the above description of the whole range of operations from the separation of useful biotic microbes from soil, their further multiplication under controlled condition, and upto their being marketed as finished product, namely, soil inoculants in lignite-based carrier, involves several processes. The bio-inoculants, which are marketed by the appellants under various brand names and which are crop-specific, cannot be said to be the same as the soil as an ecosystem consisting of biotic and a biotic factors which is the starting material. Even, according to the literature on the products available on record, the goods are marketed as products to maintain proper plant growth to improve soil fertility and the quality of the soil and to make-up for depletion of the nitrogenous compounds in the soil. The appellants' argument that there is no process of manufacture involved proceeds from the stage of culturing and multiplication of the micro-organisms. But the earlier stage of isolating the useful microbes from the soil as an ecosystem from among the biotic and abiotic factors contained in the soil, will itself be the starting point of the whole process which is, thereafter, followed by the culturing of the micro-organism in controlled condition and their multiplication. A further aspect to be noted is that the end-products, which are marketed under separate brand names, are according to the literature, formulated products. These are also crop-specific with prescribed dosages. Therefore, viewing the process from the starting point of separation of micro-organism from soil as ecosystem, and to the end of the line where formulated, branded products, are marketed as suitable for the purpose of enriching the soil or improving the condition of soil and helping healthy plant growth would all go to show that the starting material and the end-product are totally different. In this context, the Supreme Court decision in the case of Empire Industries v. Union of India -1985 (20) ELT 179 is relevant on what constitutes 'Manufacture'. The Supreme Court had, in that decision, considered the whole range of decisions on the issue of interpretation of the term 'manufacture' and had held that the moment there is a transformation into a new commodity commercially known as a distinct and separate commodity having its own character, use and name, whether be it the result of one process or several processes 'manufacture' takes place and liability to duty is attracted. Here also the final products, which are marketed as formulated goods and as soil inoculants, are different from the soil which is the starting material from which the useful microbes are separated for further processes resulting in the finished product. It is also seen from the literature relating to the products that they are in the nature of fertilizers. This Tribunal had occasion to refer to certain authorities on fertilizers in its decision in the case of Radhika Vitamalt Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. Collector of C. Ex., Meemt -1985 (21) ELT 920 (Tri.). According to the Wealth of India, the term 'fertilizer' is ordinarily applied to materials which are added to soils to increase the supply of plant nutrients and thereby enhance fertility of the soil. Inthelndian Standards Glossary of Terms used in fertilizer trade and industry (IS : 1304-1980), fertilizer is defined as a material, organic or inorganic, natural or synthetic, which supplies one or more of the chemical elements required for the plant growth. The reliance placed by the appellants in Bombay High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of S.T. v. Nhava Poultry Farm (supra), on facts, appears to be distinguishable as in that case one day old chicks are bought out by the petitioners and fed whereas the starting point in the present case is the soil as an ecosystem from which useful microbes are separated by a conscious process involving labour whereafter such separated microbes are subjected to further processes of multiplication, formulation and are being mixed with lignite-based carrier for transport and marketing. The facts are, therefore, not comparable. The Collector (Appeals), in his order, had also observed that the products are sold as bio-fertilizers and are akin to yeast which are classifiable under T.I. 68 and he has further, observed that the appellants could not clarify in what way their products could be distinguished from yeast which also is held as a micro-organism. The Collector (Appeals), apparently, has referred to certain clarifications by the Ministry, which are available in the Central Excise Tariff of India by Sh. R.K. Jain in which it is stated that yeast is a manufactured product covered by Tariff Item 68 and that it cannot be treated as a kind of food product or food preparation for claiming exemption under Notification 55/75, dated 1-3-1975 -M.F. (D.R. & I.) letter No. 35/2/75-TRU (Pt.), dated 21-10-1975. In the present appeal, this point is not being effectively met by the appellants, who have merely stated that yeast and the said products are of different classes, the former being of mould category and the letter of the bacteria category. This however, does not show how, if yeast is classified as a manufactured product under Item 68 GET, the appellants' product cannot be so classified merely on the basis that the appellants' products are of the bacteria category. In fact, in the literature relating to the product 'bactin', it is stated that the contents are, among other things, fungi which will include yeast. Therefore, from a totality of the circumstances, it is to be held that the process of producing the various branded products as soil inoculants from the starting point of separating out useful microbes from the soil to the point of packing and marketing, the processes involved are process of manufacture bringing into existence soil inoculants as formulated crop-specific branded products marketed as soil inoculants different from the starting material, namely, soil as the ecosystem consisting of biotic and abiotic factors. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal is rejected.