9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 247 - SC - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Classification under Chapter Heading 11.01 or under Chapter Heading 1301.10 - Held that - Impugned order is set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the Tribunal. We direct that the matter shall be heard by a larger Bench. We may record that in the impugned order the Tribunal has held that the aforesaid process constitutes manufacture . Since in the case of Hindustan Gum and Chemicals Ltd. this issue was left open to be decided by the Tribunal, the larger Bench of the Tribunal can take a fresh look into this issue in the instant case as well. - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 676 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - larger Bench of the Tribunal to decide the matter within six months.
Issues: Classification of product under Chapter Heading 11.01 or 1301.10, Conflict of opinion between two Tribunal decisions, Referral to larger Bench for resolution, Consideration of 'manufacture' in the case
The Supreme Court judgment dealt with the classification issue of Guar Dal Powder under Chapter Heading 11.01 or 1301.10 for excise duty purposes. The assessee argued that the product should be classified under Chapter Heading 11.01, attracting nil duty, as it is a product of the milling industry. However, the Revenue contended that the product, after the milling process, should be classified under Chapter Heading 1301.10 as 'Gum,' resulting in a demand for excise duty, penalty, and interest. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, classifying the product under Chapter Heading 11.01 as a product of the milling industry. The main contention raised by the appellants was regarding a conflict of opinion between two Tribunal decisions, one involving 'Guar Gum' and the other 'Tamarind Kernel powder,' on whether such products should be classified under Chapter Heading 11.01 or 1301.10. The appellants argued that the Tribunal should have referred the matter to a larger Bench for resolution instead of relying on a specific decision, which they claimed was impermissible. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellants' submission, noting the conflict of opinion between the two Tribunal decisions. The Court emphasized that in such situations, the proper course of action for the Tribunal was to refer the matter to a larger Bench to resolve the conflict. Additionally, the Court highlighted that in a related case involving Hindustan Gum and Chemicals Ltd., certain aspects were not properly addressed by the Tribunal, leading to a remand back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the Tribunal, directing that the matter be heard by a larger Bench. The Court specifically mentioned that the issue of whether the process constitutes 'manufacture' should be reconsidered by the larger Bench, considering the unresolved aspect in the Hindustan Gum and Chemicals Ltd. case. To expedite the process, the Court instructed the larger Bench to decide the matter within six months from the judgment date, effectively disposing of the appeals accordingly.
|
