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 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