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/2012-13/1283

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