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 Law /2016-17/3374

Whether “Fenbendazole” can be classified under Heading 2933 29 90 ?

Case:-SHUBHAM PHARMACHEM P. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA
Citation:-2016 (342) E.L.T. 251 (Tri. - Mumbai)
Brief facts:- The appellant, M/s. Shubham Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. imported “Fenbendazole” and sought to classify the same under Heading 2933 29 90. Revenue issued a show cause notice alleging that the said item is classifiable under Heading 2933 99 00 and therefore, the imports were restricted and licence was required as per foreign trade policy. The matter was adjudicated and the goods were held to be classified under Heading 2933 99 00 and hence restricted. The same were confiscated and offered on payment of redemption fine and penalty was also imposed.
Appellant’s contention:-The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the goods are correctly classifiable under Heading 2933 29 50. The said heading reads as under :

2933 19 90 Other  
  Compounds containing an unfused imidazole ring (whether or not hydrogenated) in the structure :  
2933 21 00 Hydantoin and its derivatives Free
2933 29 Other  
2933 29 10 Tinidazole Free
2933 29 20 Metronidazole, metronidiazole benzoate Free
2933 29 30 Membendazole Free
2933 29 40 Dimetridazole Free
2933 29 50 Albendazole Free
2933 29 90 Other  
2933 99 00 Other  

He argued that the entire case of the Revenue isbased on Harmonised Commodity Data Base of World Customs Organization (WCO), where it is specifically classified under Heading 2933.99. He pointed out that these documents have not been appreciated. He also pointed out that it is not clear as to what period the said data base pertains to and what were the entries in the tariff at the material time. He argued that all compounds containing imidazole ring are classifiable under the Headings 2933 21 to 2933 29. He highlighted that Tinidazole, Mebendazole, Dimetridazole and Albendazole are all classifiable under Heading 2933 29 of the tariff. He produced the molecule structure of three items.
On seeing the diagram it can be see that all three molecules contained imidazole ring which is basic qualification for classification under Headings 2933 21 to 2933 29. The compounds Fenbendazole and Mebendazole are both classifiable under sub-headings 2933 29 50 and 2933 29 30 respectively. In view of the above, he argued that the goods are rightly classifiable under Heading 2933 29 90 and therefore, not restricted.
Respondent’s contention:- The learned AR relies on the impugned order. Hehowever failed to produce the so called database of world customs organization of which the impugned order is based.
Reasoning of judgement:-We have gone through the rival submissions. We findthat the only ground on which the impugned order is based is the so called database of world customs organization. The Revenue has failed to produce the same and therefore, the same cannot be considered for the purpose of classification.
The learned Counsel has clearly demonstrated fromthe structure of the compounds that Fenbendazole contains imidazole ring. Any chemical containing imidazole is classifiable under Heading 2933 21 00 to 2933 29 90. In view of the above, the classification sought by the appellant is upheld. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
(Pronounced in Court on 24-8-2016)
Decision:-Appeals allowed
 
Comment:- The analogy of case is that all compounds containing imidazole ring are classifiable under the Headings 2933 21 to 2933 29. Tinidazole, Mebendazole, Dimetridazole and Albendazole are all classifiable under Heading 2933 29 of the tariff and all these contain  imidazole ring which is basic qualification for classification under Headings 2933 21 to 2933 29.
Hence any chemical containing imidazole is classifiable under Heading 2933 21 00 to 2933 29 90. The compounds Fenbendazole and Mebendazole are both classifiable under sub-headings 2933 29 50 and 2933 29 30 respectively. Therefore appellant has correctly classified “Fenbendazole” under Heading 2933 29 90, So no penalty and need of license arises.
 
PREPARED BY-RAKSHAY TATER

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