Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1283

Classification of product Xanthan Gum
 
Case: -COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA v. NDC DRUG & CHEMICAL P. LTD.
 
Citation: - 2012(284) E.L.T. 366 (Tri- Mumbai)


 
Brief facts: - The Respondent M/s. NDC Drug & Chemical P. Ltd. imported consignment of Xanthan Gum USP 80 Mesh vide bill of Entry No. 813195, dated 18- 12-2009 and claimed classification under Heading No. 39.13 of the Customs Tariff. On examination of the goods, it appeared that the classification claimed by the appellant is not correct and the product merit classification under Heading No. 13.01. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Dy. Chief Chemist along with catalogue and literature submitted by the importer. The Dy. Chief Chemist vide report dated 31-12-2009 opined that since the product under import is produced by natural process (bacterial fermentation of carbohydrates which are also natural in origin) and has characteristics of natural gum, hence it merits classification under CTH 13.01. Accordingly the adjudicating authority classified the product under CTH 13.01.
 
The Appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Id. Appellate authority observed that the imported goods are polysaccharide produced by fermentation of carbohydrates (glucose or sucrose) by Xanthomonas campestris bacteria and it is not the same as Xanthium Gum classifiable under Heading 1301 90 34.  Further, there was no finding by the lower authority that the goods in question were a vegetable secretion. He also observed that the US customs had issued a classification ruling in respect of the impugned goods under Heading No. 3913 90 as a natural polymer and on this basis, he set aside the order of the lower authority and allowed the appeal of the respondent.
 
Hence the revenue is in appeal before Tribunal.
 
Appellant’s Contentions:-  The Id. Superintendent AR for the revenue reiterate the finding of the lower authorities and submits that as per Dy. Chief Chemist's report available on record, the product has characteristics of a natural gum and the process involved in the manufacture of the product is a natural process and therefore, the product merits classification under Heading No. 1301 90 34.
 
 
Respondent’s Contentions: - The Id. counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence on record available that the impugned product is a vegetable secretion falling under Chapter 13. As per the manufacturers' product catalogue, it is seen that the product is obtained by fermentation of polysaccharide. The US customs authorities have considered the classification matter and have also given a ruling that the import classification as a natural polymer under Heading No. 39.13 of the Customs Tariff. In view of the above, the classification claimed by the respondent is not correct in law.
 
 
Reasoning of Judgment:  The Tribunal Held that product under importation is Xanthan Gum USP 80 Mesh And there was no evidence available on record to show that the Xanthan Gum under import and the Xanthium Gum specified in Heading 1301 90 34 are one and the same. The product literature of the manufacturer shows the following "Xanthan Gum, which is mainly made from starch, is a high molecular weight polysaccharide produced by fermentation with Xanthomonas campestris under the conditions of special nutrient medium, pH, 02-supply and temperature, then purified, dried and milled into white-like or light-yellow free-flowing powder."
 
From the above, it is seen that even though the product might have natural origin, it has been subjected to various processes and the product no longer retains the characteristics of a natural secretion. Heading 1301 covers Lac, natural gum, resins, resin gum, and oleo resins. The said heading does not cover products which have been processed further by using various processes.
 
The Tribunal further held that classification of the product has also been examined by the US customs and it has been noted in the classification ruling that "Xanthan Gum is obtained by microbial fermentation from the Xanthomonas campestris organism. At the end of the fermentation process, the Xanthium Gum is recovered from precipitation in isopropyl alcohol, then dried and milled." The said ruling further notes that CTH 13.01 covers natural gums, resins, gum resins, oleoresins and balsams. They may be crude, washed, purified, bleached, crushed or powdered, but excludes such items that have been subjected to more complicated processes such as treatment with water under pressure, treatment with mineral acids and treatment with heat. Thus when the natural gum is further processed, it falls outside the CTH 13.01. Since the product is a natural polymer, the US customs has ruled that it merits classification under CTH 3913.90. Therefore, the appropriate classification for the product is 3913 which covers natural polymers and modified natural polymer not elsewhere specified or included in the primary form. They further submitted that according to Wiki.anwers.com, Xanthan Gum is bacteria used during the fermentation process, Xanthomonas Campestris, Xanthium is a plant from the asteraceae plant. Their origin, molecular structure and molecular weight are different. In other words, they are altogether different substances. Therefore Tribunal does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower appellate authority and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue as devoid of merits.
 
Decision: -Appeal dismissed.
 
Comment:From this case, it is found that classification of a product is to be done keeping all the factors in mind and not just by going with the name of the product. In this case, product Xanthan was classifiable under 3913 because CTH 13.01 excludes natural gum that have been subjected to some processes and as the said product could not be classified under CTH 13.01.
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