2010 (2) TMI 1005 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of maize starch under Chapter Heading 3809 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Remand of the matter due to incorrect classification by the Commissioner.

In this case, the impugned order held that maize starch manufactured by the respondents cannot be classified under Chapter Heading 3809 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as a preparation for use in the textile industry. The Department contended that the product is maize starch and should be classified under Chapter Heading 3809, citing a previous Tribunal decision. However, the Commissioner disagreed, stating that the product is not maize starch and that the use of chemicals in small quantities does not constitute the manufacture of processed starch. The Department sought a remand based on the alleged error by the Commissioner and similarities to a previous case. The Advocate for the respondents argued that the product cannot be classified under Chapter Heading 3809, referring to the Commissioner's detailed analysis in the impugned order. The Tribunal noted that the Department's proposed revision in the grounds of appeal to classify the product under a different heading was rejected, and as per Supreme Court precedent, a fresh show cause notice would be required for such a change. The Commissioner's classification under Chapter Heading 3809 was upheld, determining that the product does not qualify as a preparation for use in the textile industry. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of correctly interpreting the Central Excise Tariff Act for classification and rejected the Department's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's classification of the product under Chapter Heading 3809, rejecting the Department's appeal for a different classification. The decision highlighted the necessity of accurate interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff Act for proper classification of goods, emphasizing that the most appropriate heading must be determined based on the exact provisions of the Act rather than choosing a different heading arbitrarily.