9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 302 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Anhydrous Dextrose I.P. - classified under CH No.17.02 of Central Excise Tariff or under CH No.29.42.00? - Held that - The CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of Maize Products 2009 (6) TMI 300 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD decided that the product viz. Anhydrous Dextrose deserves classification under CH No.17.02 of Central Excise Tariff and not under CH No.29.42.00 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Classification of Anhydrous Dextrose I.P. under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Analysis: Issue 1: Classification of Anhydrous Dextrose I.P. under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 The appeal was made against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) classifying Anhydrous Dextrose I.P. under Chapter Heading No.29.42.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant contended that based on previous case laws, the correct classification should be under Chapter Heading No.17.02. The case laws of Maize Products Vs CCE Ahmedabad and CCE Indore Vs Tirupati Starch & Chemicals Ltd were cited to support this argument. The CESTAT Ahmedabad, in the Maize Products case, held that Anhydrous Dextrose should be classified under CH No.17.02 and not CH No.29.42.00. The judgment referred to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Tirupati Starch & Chemicals Ltd and highlighted that Dextrose falls within the ambit of Heading 17.02 as it is chemically pure glucose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also upheld the decision of CESTAT Delhi in the Tirupati Starch & Chemicals Ltd case, further confirming the classification under CH No.17.02. Consequently, the correct classification of Anhydrous Dextrose I.P. was determined to be under Chapter Heading No.17.02 and not Chapter Heading No.29.42.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In conclusion, the orders classifying Anhydrous Dextrose I.P. under Chapter Heading No.29.42.00 were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the classification issue based on previous case laws and highlighted the correct classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
|
