Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (5) TMI 1286 - AT - Central Excise


Issues: Classification of Henna Powder under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The respondents, manufacturers of Henna Powder under the brand name 'Goldiee Marwari Mehndi,' claimed classification under Tariff item No. 1404 1019. Revenue contended that the goods, sold in unit containers for human body use, should be classified under Chapter Heading No. 33.05. Three show cause notices were issued demanding Central Excise Duty.

2. Decision of Original Authority: The original authority confirmed the demand, classifying the goods under chapter 33, leading to appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Order-in-Appeal: The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods were classifiable under Tariff item No. 1404 1019, distinguishing the case law cited by Revenue and providing that there was no indication on the packing for hair use. This decision was challenged in appeals.

4. Appellate Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal considered the case law of Henna Export Corporation and noted that Henna Powder in bulk is classifiable under 14.01, while if indicated for hair use, it falls under 33.05. In this case, as the goods were intended for hand use, not hair, the Tribunal dismissed all three appeals by Revenue, granting consequential relief to the respondents.

5. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific indication of use on the unit packing, aligning with the classification criteria under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The judgment emphasized the importance of clear indications for classification purposes, ultimately ruling in favor of the respondents and against the Revenue's contentions.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates