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/2012-13/1283

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