2011 (9) TMI 676 - SC - Central Excise

Classification - TP 12 - Heading 11.01 or 13.01 - Held That - CESTAT is the last fact finding authority. - While answering the aforesaid issue, the CESTAT has merely relied upon the circulars/instructions issued by the Board in F.No. 10/18/86-CXI, dated 14-8-86. - CESTAT ought to have considered whether by the process of treatment the Tamarind Kernal Powder has undergone a change when TPT-12 is manufactured and sold as a marketable commodity. However, the CESTAT has not answered this issue. In our view, this is a primary issue which should have been considered and answered by the CESTAT. - matter remanded back for fresh consideration

Summary

Issues: Classification of TPT-12 under Central Excise Tariff Act

Issue 1: Classification of TPT-12
The appeal raised the issue of whether TPT-12, treated Tamarind Kernal Powder, should be classified under Heading 11.01 as a product of the milling industry or under Heading 13.01 as a gum. An inspection led to a show cause notice alleging deliberate evasion of excise duty by misclassification. The Adjudicating Authority vacated the notice, but the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) set it aside. The CESTAT allowed the assessee's appeal, prompting the revenue to file the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court reviewed the CESTAT's decision, noting that the issue of whether TPT-12 underwent a change during processing was crucial but left unaddressed. The Court emphasized the need for CESTAT to consider this primary issue, as it is the final fact-finding authority. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter back to CESTAT for a fresh determination, directing both parties to present further evidence. The Court set a timeline for CESTAT to decide the matter within four months, leaving all contentions open for consideration.

Outcome:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by setting aside CESTAT's order and remanding the case for further consideration. The parties were instructed to appear before CESTAT with additional evidence, and CESTAT was tasked with making a decision within four months. All arguments from both sides were left open for review.

Related Judgments:
Two other civil appeals were disposed of in the same terms as the main appeal, while another appeal was considered unnecessary in light of the decision in the main case and was thus deemed infructuous.