Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law /2016-17/3267

Classification of ‘Act-II Microwave Popcorn’ which were imported.

Case:- AGRO TECH FOODS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS., JNCH, NHAWA SEVA  
 
Citation:-2016 (337) E.L.T. 436 (Tri.-Mumbai)   
 
Brief Facts:-The brief facts of the case are thatarise for consideration are appellant herein had imported “Act-II Microwave Popcorn” (imported goods) vide bill of entry No. 625018, dated 25-8-2004 and claimed classification under Customs Tariff Heading No. 2005 80 00. Lower authorities were of the view that this heading may not be applicable which is for only sweet corn while the imported goods are of Popcorn a variety which would fall under CTH 2106 90 99.
 
 
Appellant’s Contention:-The appellant submitted that the product imported by the appellant would merit classification under 2008 and not 2005, though it was claimed before the lower authorities. He was submit that the imported goods are other attribute parts of the client. He has drawn attention to the Chapter Heading No. 2008. He has also drawn attention to the HSN for. He has submit that imported goods are ready to use Popcorn mixed with butter and needs only Microwaved and then for direct consumption. He would submit that identical issue came at before the US Customs ruling court and it was held that the imported goods are classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 2008 as other edible parts of plants.
 
 
Respondent Contention:-Learned departmental representative on the other hand has drawn attention to the HSN Explanatory note of Chapter 21 and submit that the imported goods are preparation of butter, other fats or oils, and hence correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 2106 as food preparations not elsewhere specified or included. . Revenue is claiming classification under Chapter Heading No. 2106, while the assessee is claiming the classification under Chapter Heading No. 2008, though before the lower authorities in the bill of entry they had claimed classification under Chapter Heading No. 2005.
 
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-In order to settle the classification dispute, it is required that the competing Chapter Headings needs to be reproduced.
 

2008   Fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included      
2008 99 99 ---- Other kg. 30% -
2106   Food preparation not elsewhere specified or included      
2106 90 99 ---- Other kg. 150% -
 

 
 
 
On perusal of records it is found that the Revenue’s claim of classification of the product under 2106 seems to be without any basis as the said Chapter Heading 2106 talks about food preparation not elsewhere specified or included. To our mind the said entry of 2106 is a general residual entry which would cover the classification of the product if it cannot be classified anywhere else. We find that the imported goods are prepared or preserved or used for making of Popcorn. It cannot be disputed that the goods are edible part of the plant. In our view, if it has to be accepted as edible part of the plant, the correct classification would be under Chapter Heading No. 2008. We find that even the HSN Explanatory Notes of Chapter 21 as well as the Customs Tariff in respect of Chapter Heading No. 21, talks primarily about the products which are generally preparation not elsewhere specified or included the Chapter Heading No. 2106, in Tribunal’s view this would apply in respect of Namkins or other items, which are not classifiable under any other heading. We also find that evidence from records, that importer appellant is a manufacturer of very same product in India and classified the same on Central Excise Tariff under Heading No. 2008 11 90 and discharging appropriate rate of duty, which has been accepted by the Central Excise Department. If the Central Excise Department who are accepting the classification of said product under 20.08 and also accepting the duty payment, of the same product, we do not find any reason not to extend the said classification under Customs Tariff to the imported goods. In Tribunal’s considered view, it has to be held that the impugned order is unsustainable and the classification of the imported goods would fall under Chapter Heading No. 2008 11 90.
 
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
 
Decision:-Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:-The crux of the case is thatwhen the revenue authorities have accepted the classification of the product under chapter 2008 1190 in Central Excise Laws, the same product cannot be classified under different chapter heading while doing assessment under Customs Laws. Therefore, the product when imported into India will be classifiable under chapter 2008 1190.
 
Prepared by:- Bharat Chouhan

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com