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 Laws/2012-13/1397

Classification of ‘All Out Combi Pack’

 
Case:- KARAMCHAND APPLIANCES PVT. LTD. V. COMMR. OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH
 
Citation:- 2012 (284) E.L.T. 692 (Tri. - Del.)

Brief Facts:-The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of All Out Refill Bot­tles containing insecticides falling under Chapter Heading 3808.10 and they are also manufacturing Electro Thermic apparatus of a kind used for domestic pur­poses falling under Chapter Heading 8516 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants have two units for manufacture of insecticide refill with electro thermic apparatus and cleared the goods manufactured by them in combination pack of apparatus and insecticides together known as 'All Out Combi Pack' which is sold in the market on MRP basis. The appellant vide letter addressed to the Superin­tendent of Central Excise, Baddi informed the Department that they would clear the above mentioned combination pack under heading 3808.10 wherein the abatement from MRP was 35% in terms of Notification No. 9/2000-C.E. (N.T.). It was further stated in the letter that if the product was classified under heading 8516 then the appellant would be entitled to higher abatement of 40%. After the intimation given to the Department, the appellant started clearing the combination pack on payment of duty "under Chapter heading 3808.10 by taking abatement of 35% from MRP in terms of Notification No. 9/2000-C.E.(N.T.).
 
The Department was of the view that the combination pack was es­sentially the electro thermic machine and not insecticides. Therefore, it fell under classification heading 8516. Accordingly, show cause notice pro­posing to re-classify the combination pack under chapter heading 8516 of Central Excise Tariff Act was issued to the appellant. The appellant in their reply to the show cause notice contended that essential character of the combination pack cleared by the appellant is a mos­quito repellent (insecticides), therefore, the combi pack in view of General Inter­pretation of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 Rule 3(b) has been classified under Chapter heading 3808.10.The Additional Commissioner, Central Excise held that the classification pack was rightly classified by the appellant un­der chapter heading 3808.10 and dropped the proceedings under show cause notice. The Department filed an appeal before Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), and the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the order-in-­original and held that combination pack would be classifiable under chapter heading 8516. The basic reason given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the im­pugned order is that the main product in the common combi pack is the appara­tus and not the insecticides refill, therefore, the essential character of the combi ­pack is to be determined by the machine and not by insecticides which is only an accessory to the machine. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of Commissioner (Ap­peals), the appellant has preferred appeal before Tribunal.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-The Tribunal heard both parties and consider that before adverting, the submissions made by the respective parties, we may note the undisputed facts. It is not disputed that combi pack comprises of insecticides refill falling under chapter heading 3808.10 and the electro thermic apparatus falling under chapter heading 8516. It is also not disputed that the ap­pellants have been clearing combi pack on MRP basis and paying excise duty un­der classification head 3808.10.
 
In the instant case, admittedly, the appellant had cleared the combi pack comprising of Allout refill bottle containing insecticides falling under Chapter heading 3808.10 and the electro thermic apparatus used for domestic purpose falling under Chapter 85 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Both the refill bottle of insecticides and the electro thermic apparatus are interdependent on each other for functional use. Refill bottle without electro thermic apparatus is of no use as mosquito repellent and electro thermic is of no use without the bottle containing insecticides. Both the articles fall with different classification heading under different chapter headings of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Thus that being the case, the question arises, what would be the right classification for combi pack.
 
In order to find answer to the aforesaid question, it is necessary to have a look on the relevant General Rules for the Interpretation of this Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which is reproduced thus:-
 
“Classification of goods in this schedule shall be governed by the following principles:-
 
The titles of Sections, Chapters and Sub-Chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be de­termined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Sec­tion or Chapter Notes and, provided such headings or Notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions :
 
(a) Any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential char­acter of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to in­clude a reference to that article complete or finished for falling to be classified as complete (or finished by virtue of this rule), presented unassembled or disassembled.
 
(b) Any reference in a heading to a material or substance shall lie taken to include a reference to mixtures or combinations of that mate­rial or substance with other materials or substances. Any reference to goods a given material or substance shall be taken to include a refer­ence to goods consisting wholly or partly of such material or sub­stance. The classification of goods consisting of more than one mate­rial or substance shall be according to the principles of Rule 3.
 
When by application of rule 2(b) or for any other reason, goods are, prima facie, classifiable wider two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows :
 
the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing more general description. How­ever, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the mate­rials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in a set put up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods.
 
mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials made up or different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to (a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, insofar as this criterion is applicable.
 
(c) when goods cannot be classified by reference to (a) or (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit classification."
 
On reading of the above Rule 3 of interpretation, it is clear that since combi pack comprises of two different articles classifiable under different chap­ters and sub-heading of the Central Excise Act, 1985, the classification of combi­ pack would be governed by Rule 3(b) of the above quoted Rule. Rule 3(b) of above quoted Rule provides that in such a case, the goods put up in sets for retail sale shall be classified as if they consisted of material or component which give them essential character in so far as that criterion is applicable.
 
Now the question arises, which of the two components, i.e. electro thermic apparatus or refill bottle of pesticides gives essential character to the combination pack. To find answer to this question, it would be essential to look at the combination pack from the buyer's perspective i.e. what would motivate the customer to buy combi pack containing the apparatus and refill bottle. Whether the buyer would be prompted to buy combination pack with a view to purchase the electro thermic apparatus or with a view to buy refill bottle of pesti­cides? In our considered view, a prospective buyer would purchase such combi­nation pack for using it as mosquito repellent, which purpose is achieved by va­porizing the liquid pesticide by subjecting it to heat with the aid of electro ther­mic apparatus. This imply that electro thermic apparatus is merely a delivery machine but the real mosquito repellent is liquid pesticides contained in refill bottle. Thus, we find that the liquid pesticides bottle in the combination pack gives essential character of mosquito repellent to the combination pack. Thus, in our view, the right classification for the combi pack would be under Chapter heading 3808.10 which relates to insecticides etc. and not under Chapter heading 8516 relating to electric heating apparatus.
 
In view of the above, Tribunal finds that it difficult to sustain the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) classifying the combi pack under Chapter 8516. Thus the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside with the obser­vation that combi pack would fall within classification 3808.10 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
 
Decision:-Appeal is allowed.
 
Comment:-The analogy drawn from this case is that in case two items are sold together having different classification, then by applying the general rules of interpretation for classification, the chapter heading of the item that gives the essential character to the product as a whole will be accepted for the purposes of classifying the product.
 

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