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/2012-13/1220

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