Pranav B Prem

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member), held that component parts of drip irrigation systems such as polytubes, microtubes, and HDPE pipes are not liable to central excise duty, as they are appropriately classifiable under Chapter Heading 8424.91 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which pertains to appliances used in agriculture and horticulture. The Tribunal also set aside the order passed by the Commissioner confirming duty demand based on alleged misclassification and clandestine clearance.

Also Read: Bajaj Motorcycle Brake Failure: Consumer Commission Awards Compensation for Manufacturing Defect

The appellant, Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., a leading manufacturer of drip and sprinkler irrigation systems, had classified various parts of such systems — including polytubes, microtubes, and HDPE pipes — under Tariff Heading 8424.91, claiming benefit of exemption under a series of Central Excise Notifications, including Notification No. 111/88-C.E., No. 46/94-C.E., and No. 56/95-C.E. According to the appellant, these items formed an integral part of drip irrigation systems used in agriculture and horticulture and were eligible for nil duty under the applicable notifications.

The revenue department, however, alleged that these items were misclassified and ought to have been assessed under Chapter Heading 3917.00, which covers plastic tubes and pipes. On that basis, a show cause notice was issued, proposing differential duty demand on the grounds that the goods were clandestinely cleared without proper duty payment. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalgaon, confirmed the demand of ₹1,57,27,022/- along with interest and penalties.

The Tribunal, after a detailed consideration of the classification dispute, held that the goods in question were not simple plastic pipes or tubes but were parts specially designed and intended for use in drip irrigation systems. Referring to CBEC Circular No. 265/99/87-CX-8 dated 16.03.1998, the Tribunal emphasized that all parts forming the surface or underground water distribution network in a drip irrigation system — such as dripper lines, microtubes, poly fittings, valves, emitters, and filters — are to be treated as integral parts of the overall irrigation system and thus classifiable under Heading 84.24.

The bench noted that under the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) explanatory notes, which guide tariff interpretation, equipment or component parts used in spraying or sprinkling water for agricultural purposes fall under Heading 8424. These items, when cleared as parts of drip irrigation systems, assume a specific utility linked to agriculture, and hence cannot be treated as generic plastic articles under Heading 39.17.

Further, the Tribunal found no material evidence to substantiate the charge of clandestine removal. The department’s case was primarily based on alleged misclassification and the resultant undervaluation. However, since the classification adopted by the appellant was held to be correct, and they had duly availed the benefit of exemption notifications, the entire foundation of the demand collapsed. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention that the goods were cleared openly and records were properly maintained, and therefore, no suppression or intention to evade duty was established.

Also Read: CESTAT: Educational Trust’s Campus Placement Services to MNCs Attract Service Tax Under ‘Manpower Recruitment’ Category

Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order confirming the demand. It reaffirmed the legal position that polytubes, microtubes, HDPE pipes, and other parts used in drip irrigation systems are classifiable under Heading 8424.91 and are exempt from central excise duty when used for agricultural or horticultural purposes.

Appearance

Counsel for Appellant/ Assessee: M.H. Patil a/w Padmavati Patel, Mansi Patil, Viraj Reshamwala & Abhijit Malankar

Counsel for Respondent/ Department: Manish Mohan, Commissioner (AR)

Cause Title: Jain Irrigation Systems Limited V. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs

Case No: Excise Appeal  No.137 of 2007

Coram: S.K. Mohanty [Judicial Member], M.M. Parthiban [Technical Member]