Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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