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/2011-12/1150

Classification of Jaljira - Whether an appetizer or masala

Case:  Commercial Taxes Officer v/s Jalani Enterprises
 
Citation: 2011(266) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.)
 
Issue:- Whether Jaljira is only an appetizer or is a masala?

Brief Facts:- The respondent firm is a manufacturer and seller of Jaljira. The respondent deposited sales tax at the rate of 10% assuming that Jaljira is not a Masala and hence taxable at the general rate of 10% as residuary entry 199, which reads as under: "199. General rate, that is all goods that are not covered by S. No. 1 - 198. 10%" The assessing officer passed order against the respondent.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the assessing officer, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Commercial Taxes, challenging the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Special Circle-II, Jodhpur. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by his order held that Jaljira is not a Masala and therefore tax levied at general rate of 10% was justified and he set aside the demand raised by the Assessing Authority.

Appellant filed two appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer challenging the aforesaid order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ajmer. The Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer by its common order set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the orders passed by the Assessing Authority.

Being aggrieved by the said order the respondent herein filed a Revision Petition before the Rajasthan High Court which came to be allowed by the High Court under the impugned judgment and order.

Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed the appeals before Supreme Court. 

Appellant’s Contention:- The appellant submitted that the respondent is liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16% on the product manufactured by it and the assessing officer was justified in treating the respondent liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16% as per the Notification was issued by the state Government on 26.03.1999, which was to the mentioned that All kinds of eatables & non alcoholic potable 12% liquids. Subsequent thereto also a notification was issued by the appellant herein on 22.03.2002 making the same effective from the date of its issuance, wherein Entry 80 includes the following: Sr. No. Detail of Goods Tax Rate 80 Dry Fruits, Supari, Kirana items, Masala 4% ([when sold in unmixed form, whether lose or in polyethylene packs]) like Mirchi, Dhaniya, sonf, methi, ajwain, suwa, haldi, kathodi, amchoor and asalia, jeera (cumin seed).

Whereas Entry 186 includes the following: Sr. No. Detail of Goods Tax Rate 186 All kinds of eatables & non-alcoholic potable 16% liquids such as fruit syrups, distilled juices, jams [chatni, murabbas], fruit juices, drink concentrates of all types and forms, essences, concentrates, corn flaks and wheat flakes, custard powder, baking powder, ice-cream powder and [multi-ingredient packed masala].

The appellant also submitted that a letter dated 12.11.2001 was issued by the Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Tax Division, Government of Rajasthan to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Deptt, Rajasthan, Jaipur, which reads as follows:

"........I am to state that "Packed Masala" used in entry number 184 means, a Masala where two or more ingredients are mixed and sold in packed conditions. Spices sold singly will continue to be taxed as per entry number 82......"

The appellant further submitted that respondent has itself shown the product manufactured by it Jaljira as Packed Masala and therefore the assessing officer was justified in treating the respondent liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16%.

Respondent’s Contention:- The respondent submitted that the assessment year in question, the said notification dated 22.03.2002 being not applicable and the earlier notification being applicable, rate of sales tax at the rate of 10% for the same is only payable.

Reasoning of Judgment:- The Supreme Court perused the order of the High Court and observed that the High Court in is judgment held that Jaljira cannot be termed as a Masala in itself, but it is a mixture of masalas and other materials, which can be used for digestion. The High Court therefore held that Jaljira is nothing but edible preparation ready for use either directly or after dissolving in water for human consumption and as it is not used as additional constituent in any food substance, therefore, it cannot be termed as packed masala. The aforesaid findings were arrived at by the High Court after referring to the contents of Jaljira shown to be as follows: Sr. No. Name of Item Percentage 1. Salt 40%,2. Kala Namak 1%,3. Nimbu Ka Sat (Citric Acid) 8%,4. Sonth 10%,5. Kalimirch 10%,6. Pudina 10%,7. Hing 1% ,8. Jira 18%, and 9. Lalmirch 2% According to the High Court Jaljira would therefore fall in the residuary clause and therefore tax should be levied at the rate of 10% and not 16%.

The Court observed that each one of the contents of the product referred to above and relied upon by the High Court would indicate that most of the items used in the manufacture of Jaljira are nothing else but spices. They are grinded and mixed. When spices are grinded and mixed, it gives rise to a new product, which is a mixed masala. Different ingredients are used in preparation of Masala after grinding and mixing several ingredients and when they are so grinded they lose their own identity and character and a new product separately known to the commercial world comes into existence. Sales tax is levied on sale of commercial commodities; therefore, individual spices could be termed as different commercial commodities. When they are grinded and mixed they give rise to a separate commercial commodity altogether which could be taxed separately. It is settled law that when one particular item is covered by one specified entry, then the Revenue is not permitted to travel to the residuary entry. If from the records it is established that the product in question could be brought under a specific entry then there is no reason to take resort to the residuary entry. There is no doubt that Jaljira is a drink. The contents of Jaljira is put into water and taken as digestive drink but when we look into the manner and method of preparation of the product Jaljira, we find that it is a mixture of different spices after grinding and mixing. Therefore, it is nothing but a Masala packed into packets of different nature/quantity and sold to the consumers. It would, therefore, for all practical purposes would come within the Entry No. 184 and it cannot be said that it would come under the residuary entry as held by the High Court.

The Supreme Court considered that the clarificatory letter dated 12.11.2001 which was issued by the Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Tax Division, Government of Rajasthan is also placed on record which specifically states that "Packed Masala" used in entry number 184 means, a Masala where two or more ingredients are mixed and sold in packed conditions. The said letter is in the nature of clarification of entry number 184 with which we are concerned. Although the said letter is an inter-departmental communication,but it cannot be said that clarification given by the Department cannot be made use of for interpreting the entry in the notification.
 
The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the entries in the notification by Department are quite clear to include the product in question within the ambit and parameters of the expression packed masala and therefore the assessing officer was justified in demanding sales tax from the respondent at the rate of 16% holding that the product manufactured by the respondent falls within the category of items included in Entry No. 184.
 
The Supreme Court further considered that Other products of the assessee such as Aachar Masala, Jaljeera powder, Anar Masala, Methi Chatani, Pudina, Lehsoon Chatni, Chat Masala, Kitchen Masala, Mangodi Masala, Sambhar Masala, Dal Masala, Kasuri Methi, Heena Powder, Shikkai Powder, Lahsoon powder, must be held to be Masala packed falling under Entry No. 184 of the notification dated 29.03.2001.  So far as Masala and other products are concerned the same principle would apply but at the same time Idli Mix and Dosa Mix cannot be said to be Masala and therefore the same would be excluded from being assessed for the purpose of sales tax assessment as `masala'. Judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. The order passed by the Tax Assessment Officer is restored
 
Decision:- Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:- This is very important decision. The CESTAT has decided the matter against the same party saying that “Jaljeera” is drink and not Masala. But the Apex Court has decided in this sales tax matter that it is Masala only. Thus, for Central excise matter, it is drink but for Sales tax matter, it will be termed as Masala. Now, there is exemption to Jaljeera from payment of Central Excise duty and hence there is no dispute but it may arise in future. 

**************

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