Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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