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 Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (3) TMI 702 - AT - Customs


Issues involved:
The classification of goods cleared from Kandla SEZ under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 07.03.2012.

Classification of Goods:
The issue revolved around whether the goods, described as bhusi/bhuki of pulses/pulses waste, cleared from Kandla SEZ should be classified under Chapter heading 07139099 or 11061000 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The department argued that the goods were Pulses Grinding (Atta of Pulses)-Powder, falling under heading 11061000.

Appellant's Submission:
The appellant, represented by Shri S.J. Vyas and Shri M.A. Mehta, contended that as they do not have a milling industry, the product in question arises in the usual course of processing of pulses and is in the form of bhusi/bhuki, tukdi of pulses, not atta. They emphasized that no further processing is carried out, and the product remains as pulses in tukdi or coarse form, warranting classification under Chapter heading 07139099. They supported their argument with a detailed affidavit from the Director of the Appellant Company, clarifying the facts and process.

Revenue's Argument:
Shri Kalpesh P Shah, representing the Revenue, reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the classification under heading 11061000.

Tribunal's Decision:
After considering the submissions and perusing the record, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had declared the product as Pulses Grinding (Atta of pulses)-Powder, implying a form different from pulses. However, given the absence of a milling industry, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument supported by the Director's affidavit. As the affidavit was not considered by the Adjudicating Authority, the Tribunal, in adherence to the principle of natural justice, set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, directing the Adjudicating Authority to review the case in light of the affidavit and provide sufficient opportunity for a personal hearing to the appellants. The appeals were allowed by way of remand.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates