{"id":71322,"date":"1996-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996"},"modified":"2016-10-23T05:04:48","modified_gmt":"2016-10-22T23:34:48","slug":"ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Ranadey Micronutrients vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Ranadey Micronutrients vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: B S.P.<\/div>\n
Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM\/S. RANADEY MICRONUTRIENTS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/09\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nVENKATASWAMI K. (J)\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t\tCIVIL APPEAL NO.5405 OF 1993
\n\t\t\t O R D E R
\n     These   appeals\tconcern\t  the\t classification\t  of
\nmicronutrients\t for\tthe   purposes\t of   Excise   duty.
\nMicronutrients are  mixtures of\t soluble salts\tof  elements
\nlike calcium,  magnesium,  manganese,  zinc,  iron,  copper,
\nboron and  molybdenum. They  are mixed in stated percentages
\nto get\ta formulated  product which  assists the  growth  of
\nplants. The appellants manufacture micronutrients.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts being similar, we set out those of one of the
\ntwo appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     During the\t period October,  1989, to  November,  1989,
\nsamples of  micronutrients were\t drawn\tand  tested  by\t the
\nDeputy Chief  Chemist of  the union of India who opined that
\nmicronutrients were  not “plant growth regulators”. However,
\non 6th\tNovember, 1989,\t the  Collector\t of  Central  Excise
\nissued to  the appellants(in Civil Appeal No 5404 of 1983) a
\nnotice to  show cause  why the\tmicronutrients made  by them
\nshould not  be classified as “plant growth regulators” under
\nheading 38.08.90. The show-case notice related to the period
\n1st April,  1986, to  23rd September,  1989. The  appellants
\nshowed cause and led evidence at the personal hearing before
\nthe Collector on 6th December, 1989. On 11th December, 1989,
\nan Addendum  was issued\t to the\t show-cause notice dated 6th
\nNovember, 1989,\t which required the appellants to show cause
\nwhy their  micronutrients should  not  be  classified  under
\nheading 38.23  as ”  residual products of chemical or allied
\nindustries, not\t elsewhere  specified’.\t On  22nd  February,
\n1990, a\t Corrigendum was  issued to  the  show-cause  notice
\naforementioned which  sought to\t classify the micronutrients
\nunder heading  38.23 as\t “chemical products and preparations
\nof  the\t chemical  or  allied  industries  (including  those
\nconsisting of  mixture of  natural products  ) not elsewhere
\nspecified “.  On 14th  April, 1990,  the  appellants  showed
\ncause.\n<\/p>\n
     On 20th,  June, 1990,  a circular\t(now  called  ”\t the
\nearlier circular”) was issued by the Central Board of Excise
\nand Customs  (now called  “the Board  “), addressed  to\t all
\ncollectors  of\t Central  Excise,  on  the  subject  of\t the
\nclassification of micronutrients for the purposes of Central
\nExcise. The  circular stated that a doubt had been expressed
\nregarding  the\tclassification\tof  micronutrients,  namely,
\nwhether they  should be\t classified under heading 31.05 as ”
\nfertilizers”  or   under  heading  38.08  as  “plant  growth
\nregulators”. The  matter had  been examined  in consultation
\nwith the  Deputy Chief\tChemist who  had opined that heading
\n31.05 covered  only those  compounds in\t which\tone  of\t the
\nelements was  nitrogen or  phosphorus  or  potassium.  Since
\nmicronutrients did not contain these, micronutrients did not
\nmerit classification as fertilizers under heading 31.05. The
\nopinion of  the deputy chief chemist was that micronutrients
\ncontained other\t elements which\t made them  classifiable  as
\n“plant growth  regulators”. “In\t view  of  the\tabove”,\t the
\nearlier\t circular   stated,    “it  is\tclarified  that\t the
\nappropriate classification  of\tthe  product  ‘plant  growth
\nregulator’ would be under heading 38.08 of CET”. The earlier
\ncircular required the collectors of  central Excise to bring
\nthe clarification  it contained\t to the\t notice of the lower
\nfield formations  and suitably\tadvice trade  interests. The
\nearlier circular  also stated,\t“All pending assessments may
\nbe finalized on the above basis”.\n<\/p>\n
     On 23rd  July, 1990,  the collector  of Central  Excise
\nwrote to the appellants a further letter in connection\twith
\nthe show-cause\tnotice dated 6th November, 1989. It canceled
\nthe Addendum  dated 11th December, 1989, and the Corrigendum
\ndated 22nd  February,1 990,  and reverted to the stand taken
\nin  the\t  show-cause  notice   itself,\tnamely,\t  that\t the
\nmicronutrients\twere   classifiable  as\t  ”   plant   growth
\nregulators”  under   heading  30.08.   After   hearing\t the
\nappellants  appealed   to  the\t Central  Excise   and\tGold
\n(Control). Appellate  Tribunal which,  by  the\torder  under
\nappeal, upheld\tthe classification but limited the demand to
\nthe period  of six  months preceding  the date\tof the show-
\ncause notice.\n<\/p>\n
     Subsequent to the filing of the appeals in the Court, a
\ncircular (now called “the later circular”) was issued by the
\nBoard which  is crucial to these appeals. The later circular
\nis dated  21st November,  1994.\t It  was  addressed  to\t the
\nCollectors  of\t Central  Excise   on  the  subject  of\t the
\nclassification of micronutrients for the purposes of Central
\nExcise. The  later circular invited attention to the earlier
\ncircular and  “and the\tinstructions contained”\t therein. It
\nnoted  that   the   earlier   circular\t had   stated\tthat
\nmicronutrients were appropriately classifiable under heading
\n38.08  a  ”  plant  growth  regulators”.  The  Indian  Micro
\nFertilisers Manufacturer`s  Association had represented that
\nmicronutrients should  be classified  under heading 31.05 as
\n`other fertilizers`and\thad produced  certificates issued by
\nvarious Agricultural  Universities as evidence in support of
\ntheir claim  . The Board had carefully reexamined the entire
\nissue in  consultation with  the Ministry of Agriculture and
\nthe  Chief   Chemist.  The   Ministry  of  Agricultural\t had
\nclarified that\tmicronutrients were recognized a fertilizers
\nunder the  Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. The Chief Chemist
\nhad opined  that in technology and trade micronutrients were
\nclassifiable along  with fertilizers.  In terms of Rule 4 of
\nthe Interpretative  Rules  if  the  Central  Excise  Tariff,
\nmicronutrients merited\tclassification as  fertilizers . The
\nlater circular added:\n<\/p>\n
     “4. Therefore, it is clarified that
\n     micronutrients listed under Sr. No.
\n     1(F) of  Schedule 1  Part(A) of the
\n     Fertilizer Control\t Order, 1985 and
\n     their  mixture   (with  or\t without
\n     N.P.K.) as\t notified by the Central
\n     Government or  a  State  government
\n     would be appropriately classifiable
\n     under heading  no. 31.05  as “Other
\n     fertilizers.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5. The  above clarification  may be
\n     brought to\t the notice of the lower
\n     field  formations\t and  the  trade
\n     interests\tmay   also  be\tsuitably
\n     advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.\t Board’s  earlier  circular  no.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     26\/90-Cx.3\t     dated\t 26.6.90
\n     accordingly stands withdrawn.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7. All  pending assessments  may be
\n     finalised on the above basis.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The appellants  have placed  the later  circular on the
\nrecord, annexed\t to an affidavit, and have relied upon it in
\nargument  and\tcontented  that,   in  view  thereof,  their
\nmicronutrients\tcannot\t be  classified\t except\t as  therein
\nstated. It  has also  been  pointed  out  that\tfor  periods
\nsubsequent to  those with  which we  are concerned  in these
\nappeals, their\tmicronutrients have been classified in terms
\nof the later circular.\n<\/p>\n
     To\t the  affidavit\t annexing  the\tlater  circular,  an
\naffidavit in reply has been filed by M. K. Gupta, working as
\nDirector in  department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New
\nDelhi. He  states that\tSection 37B  of the Central Excise &
\nSalt Act  empowers the\tboard to issue instructions in order
\nto ensure  uniform practice of assessment of excisable goods
\nthroughout the country. Instructions thus issued by invoking
\nSection 37B  get “statutory  status and\t significance:.\t Any
\ninstructions  issued   otherwise  by  the  board  through  a
\ncircular, but  without invoking Section 37B, are advisory in
\nnature and  do not  possess statutory  significance. In this
\nsense, the  earlier circular,  not having  been issued under
\nSection 37B, had to be regarded as advice. The Section notes
\nand Chapter in the Tariff Act were enacted provisions. Thus,
\nNote 6\tof Chapter 31 governed the issue.(It states that for
\nthe purposes of\t heading 31.05 the term “other fertilizers ”
\napplies only to products of a kind used as fertilizers which
\ncontain as  an essential  constituent at  least one  of\t the
\nfertilizing elements,  nitrogen, phosphorous  or potassium.)
\nSuch products  as   did not contain these elements could not
\nbe brought  under statutory definition of fertilizers by the
\ninvocation of  the interpretative  rules.  The\tearlier\t and
\nlater circulars, not having been issued under the provisions
\nof Section 37B, were merely advisory in nature and could not
\nhave any  statutory effect.  The  scope\t of  Chapter  31  to
\ninclude micronutrient\tmixtures as fertilizers had to be by
\nenactment and  not by  advisory circulars. In the absence of
\nany amendment  by enactment  of Chapter\t 31, the  appellants
\ncould not  take shelter\t under the  later  circular  in\t the
\nmatter\tof   the  classification  of  their  product,  which
\nclassification had  already been  judicially decided  by the
\nTribunal to  be under  heading 30.80.90.  The later circular
\ncould  not   be\t given\t retrospective\t effect\t  once\t the
\nclassification dispute\tfor the\t relevant  period  had\tbeen
\nsettled by the earlier circular.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for the  appellants  relied  upon\t the
\nlater circular and proceed further, but we intervened for we
\nwanted to  hear learned\t counsel for  the Revenue  upon\t the
\nearlier and later circulars.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for the  Revenue\tsubmitted  that\t the
\nlater circular\t“flies in the face” of note 6 of chapter 31.
\nMicronutrients\tdid  not  contain  any\tof  the\t fertilizing
\nelements, nitrogen,  phosphorous and potassium and, thereof,
\nthe later  circular had\t no effect  on their classification.
\nBoth the  earlier and the later circulars were only advisory
\nin nature because it was clear on the face thereof that they
\nhad not\t been issued  by invocation  of\t the  provisions  of
\nSection 37B.  In any  event, and  assuming  that  the  later
\ncircular had  been issued  under the  provisions of  Section
\n37B, it\t could only  have prospective  effect not  alter the
\ndecision of the tribunal in the present appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     We may  add that learned counsel for the Revenue stated
\nthat there  was no  provision in  the Excise  Act other than
\nSection 37B by which the board could issue circulars such as
\nthe earlier  and later\tcirculars, but he submitted that the
\nboard had been issuing circulars even before Section 37B was
\nintroduced into the Excise Act. Section 37B reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
     ” S.37-B.-\t Instructions to Central
\n     Excise Officers.- The Central Board
\n     of Excise\tand Customs  constituted
\n     under the Central Boards of Revenue
\n     Act, 1963\t(54 of\t1963) may, if it
\n     considers it necessary or expedient
\n     so\t to   do  for\tthe  purpose  of
\n     uniformity in the classification of
\n     excisable goods  or with respect to
\n     levy of  duties of\t excise on  such
\n     goods,    issue\t such\t orders,
\n     instructions and  directions to the
\n     Central Excise  Officers as  it may
\n     deem fit, and such officers and all
\n     other  persons   employed\tin   the
\n     execution of this Act shall observe
\n     and     follow\tsuch\t orders,
\n     instructions and  directions of the
\n     said Board:-  Provided that no such
\n     orders, instructions  or directions
\n     shall be issued-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) So  as to  require any\t Central
\n     Excise Officer to make a particular
\n     assessment\t or   to  dispose  of  a
\n     particular\t case  in  a  particular
\n     manner; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) So  as to  interfere  with  the
\n     discretion\t of   the  Collector  of
\n     Central  Excise  (Appeals)\t in  the
\n     exercise\t of\this    appellate
\n     functions.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 37B contemplates the issuance by the Board of
\norders, instructions and directions to Central Excise
\nofficers. Such orders, instructions and directions are to be
\nissued when the Board considers it necessary or expedient to
\ndo so to achieve uniformity in classification of excisable
\ngoods and the levy of excise duty thereon. Central Excise
\nofficers are obliged to observe and follow these orders,
\ninstructions and directions. The orders, instructions and
\ndirections may not relate to a particular assessment or case
\nor interfere with the appellate functions of a Collector.\n<\/p>\n
     The  first\t  question,  now,  is  whether\tthe  earlier
\ncirculars are  orders, instructions or directions to Central
\nExcise officers\t within the meaning of Section 37B which the
\nCentral Excise\tofficers are  bound to\tobserve and  follow.
\nBoth circulars are addressed to all Principal Collectors  of
\nCentral\t Excise\t and  Customs,\tall  Collectors\t of  Central
\nExcise, all  Collectors of  Customs and\t all  Collectors  of
\nCentral Excise and Customs (Appeals). Both circulars require
\nthat their  contents “be  brought to the notice of the lower
\nfield  formations  and\tthe  trade  interests  may  also  be
\nsuitably advised”.  Both  circulars  require,  “All  pending
\nassessments may\t be finalized on the above basis”. The later
\ncircular refers\t to the\t contents of the earlier circular as
\n“instructions”. Both  circulars\t have  been  issued  in\t the
\ncontext of  doubts having  arisen and representations having
\nbeen received  by the Board. Both circulars have been issued
\nby the Board in consultation with the Chief and Deputy Chief
\nChemist and, in the later case, the Ministry of Agriculture.\n<\/p>\n
     There  can\t  be  no   doubt   whatsoever,\t in\t the
\ncircumstances, that  the earlier  and later  circulars\twere
\nissued by  the Board under provisions of Section 37B and the
\nfact that  they do  not so recite does not mean that they do
\nnot bind  Central Excise  officers  or\tbecome\tadvisory  in
\ncharacter. There  can be no doubt whatsoever that after 21st
\nNovember,  1994,   Excise  duty\t  could\t  be   levied\tupon
\nmicronutrients only under the provisions of heading 31.05 as
\n“other fertilizers”.  If the  later circular  is contrary to
\nthe terms  of the  statute, it\tmust be withdrawn. While the
\nlater circular\tremains in operation the Revenue is bound by
\nit and cannot be allowed to plead that it is not valid.\n<\/p>\n
     We reject\tthe  submission\t to  the  contrary  made  by
\nlearned counsel\t for the  Revenue and in the affidavit by M.
\nK. Gupta,  working as Director in the Department of Revenue,
\nMinistry of Finance. One should have thought that an officer
\nof the\tMinistry of  Finance would  have greater respect for
\ncirculars such\tas these  issued by  the Board,\t which\talso
\noperates under\tthe aegis of the Ministry of Finance, for it
\nis the\tBoard which  is, by statute, entrusted with the task
\nof  classifying\t  excisable  goods   uniformly.\t The   whole
\nobjective of  such circulars  is to adopt a uniform practice
\nand to\tinform the trade as to how a particular product will
\nbe treated  for the purposes of Excise duty. It does not lie
\nin the\tmouth of  the Revenue to repudiate a circular issued
\nby the\tBoard on  the basis  that it  is inconsistent with a
\nstatutory provision.  Consistency and discipline are of\t far
\ngreater importance  than the  winning  or  losing  of  court
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     The  argument   that  the\t later\tcircular   has\tonly
\nprospective operation  and it  cannot apply to these appeals
\nbecause the  Tribunal had  already decided them must also be
\nrejected. It is not contrary to a binding circular issued by
\nthe Board. It cannot but urge the point of view made binding
\nby the later circular.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeals  are allowed. The judgment and order of the
\nTribunal under\tappeal\tis  set\t aside.\t The  micronutrients
\nmanufactured by\t the  appellants  being\t exempt\t from\t the
\npayment of  excise  duty,    no\t order\tin  this  regard  is
\nrequired.\n<\/p>\n
     The deposits  made by  the appellants,  pursuant to the
\ninterim orders\tof the Tribunal and continued by the interim
\norders of this Court, may now be withdrawn by them. The bank
\nguarantees given  by the appellants, pursuant to the interim
\norders of  the Tribunal\t and continued by the interim orders
\nof this Court, shall now stand discharged.\n<\/p>\n
     The Revenue shall pay to the appellants the sum of Rs.
\n25,000\/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) as the aggregate
\ncosts of these appeals.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Ranadey Micronutrients vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996 Author: B S.P. Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J) 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-71322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Ranadey Micronutrients vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Ranadey Micronutrients vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-22T23:34:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Ranadey Micronutrients vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-22T23:34:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2362,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Ranadey Micronutrients vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-22T23:34:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Ranadey Micronutrients vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Ranadey Micronutrients vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Ranadey Micronutrients vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-22T23:34:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Ranadey Micronutrients vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996","datePublished":"1996-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-22T23:34:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996"},"wordCount":2362,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996","name":"M\/S. Ranadey Micronutrients vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-22T23:34:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ranadey-micronutrients-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-10-september-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Ranadey Micronutrients vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71322","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=71322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71322\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}