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/2012-13/1220

Classification of Jiljira is mixture of species and classifiable under Chapter 9.
Case:Ashok Grih Udhyog Kendra Ltd. V/s Commissioner of C. EX., Kanpur
 
Citation:2012 (282) E. L. T. 575 (Tri. – Del.)
 
Issue:- Classification of Jiljira is mixture of species and classifiable under Chapter 9.
 
Brief Facts:- The appellant is manufacturer of spices and masalas including "Jal­jeera" and "Hazmi". According to the appellant said two items are classifiable as "packed masala" under Chapter 9 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and exempted from the incidence of excise duty whereas according to the department those two items does not fall within the category of spices and are classifiable under Chapter [21] of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, under Entry No. 210899.

Appellant’s Contention:- It is submitted by the appellant that impugned order is not sustainable in law for the reason that the Adjudicating Authority has misread the classification entries. Learned Counsel relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Jalani Enter­prises reported in (2011) 4 SCC 386 = 2011 (266) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) submits that in the aforesaid matter the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether Jaljeera could be termed as masala and the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking note of ingredients of Jaljeera concluded that Jaljeera is nothing but a mixture of different spices prepared after grinding and mixing, as such, it is nothing but "packed masala" sold to the consumer.Learned Counsel submits that similarly "Hazmi" is also a mixture of grinded spices, as such, going by the ratio by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court it also falls within the category of "packed masala". Thus, according to the learned Counsel of the appellant Jaljeera and Hazmi are classifiable under Chapter 9 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 2011 and 2012 under Entry No. 0903.10. Learned Counsel has thus concluded that appel­lant has a strong prima facie case which justifies the waiver of condition of pre- deposit. It is also argued that if the appellant is called upon to deposit the amount of demand, interest and penalty would cause undue hardship to the ap­pellant.

Respondent’s Contention:- Shri S.R. Meena on the contrary has argued in support of the im­pugned judgment. He submits that the Adjudicating Authority has rightly con­cluded that Jaljeera and Hazmi are classifiable under Chapter 21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Learned AR has also tried to distinguish the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Counsel of the appellant that judgment is in contest of Sales Tax Act and not under Central Excise Act. Respondent further submits that earlier the Tribunal in the matter of Jalani Enterprises v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 422 (Tri.-Del.) had an occa­sion to deal with the classification of Jaljeera for the purpose of excise duty and the Tribunal concluded that the Jaljeera was classifiable under Chapter 21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and appeal against the judgment is still pending.
 
Reasoning of Judgement:-Adjudicating authority after considering the rival submissions and perusing the record held that from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court it prima facie appears that any mix­ture of grinded spices packed in a packet can be termed as "packed masala". Thus, prima facie Jaljeera and Hazmi are packed masala classifiable under Chap­ter 9 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 particularly Entry No. 0903.10. Tribunal held that the appellant has been able to make out prima facie case for waiver of the condition of pre-deposit. Stay application is accordingly allowed and the deposit of demand, interest and the penalty thereof is waived till dis­posal of the appeal.

Decision: - Application allowed.

Comment:- This is very important case where in the relied upon decisions by both the parties were of same manufacturer. The party viz. “Jalani Enterprises” lost his excise case when the CESTAT held that the Jaljeera is a drink and classifiable under Chapter 21. The party has pleaded in this case that their product is mixture of species and classifiable under Chapter 9.  The same party also lost the case of Sales tax before Apex court where it was held that it is mixture of species. But the other party relying on the Apex court decision is winning the case before CESTAT. Nothing is certain in legal matters.
 
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