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

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (9) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng 1103.10 and (ii) Glucose-D under Heading 1702.19 for the same period 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1988 with the benefit of adjustment of duty paid on Dextrose Monohydrate. He directed the Assistant Collector to work out the duty liability on the above basis. A sum of Rs. 10,602.30 was demanded as duty on waste of Maize Starch. 2. By a corrigendum to the order, Chapter Heading 1702.19 given in respect of Glucose-D was ordered to read as Chapter Heading 1702.29 in the findings at Page 8 and in the order at Page 9 wherever it occurred. 3. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Counsel for the appellant stated that they bought duty paid starch and after sieving repacked and sold the same as cornflour. There was no manufacture involved and starch remaine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are same goods. (iv) Asiantic Ultramarine & Pigments of India v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 140 (Tribunal). Packing of ultramarine blue in smaller packing amounting to manufacture only after the relevant Chapter Note 6 to Chapter Note 32 introduced to that effect in Finance Act, 1995 and not earlier. (v) Reckitt & Colman of India Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 407. Conversion of enzyme blend powder into tablets not amounting to manufacture. 4. Learned Counsel submitted that there was no suppression and intention to evade duty as they had a bona fide belief about their product, cornflour and glucose being not excisable. They had declared both these products .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeal were resisted by Shri J.M. Sharma, learned Departmental Representative. He stated that the Tribunal had classified Glucovita or Glucon-D as preparation of other Sugars under Heading 1702.21 and, accordingly, classification being a question of law, it was open to the Collector to apply the correct classification. As regards the plea of limitation, he pointed out that the Collector had considered the appellant's contention and held that the Board's Circular 21/70, dated 4-6-1970 relied upon by them was no longer valid under the new tariff. Glucose-D containing other added ingredients is not the same as Dextrose Monohydrate. Such addition and blending had been suppressed in the classification list where they had only mentioned repacking. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... products, namely other sugars (Heading 1702.19) and preparations of other sugars (Heading 1702.29), it is necessary to see if the order had identified the product in question as a sugar or as a preparation thereof. In the first paragraph in Page 8 of the impugned order, in the findings portion, it is mentioned that the product (glucose) is prepared (Emphasis supplied) after addition of other material to Dextrose Monohydrate and blending. A finding has been given that Glucose-D is not the same as Dextrose Monohydrate which points to the product being a preparation of other sugar and not such other sugar itself. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that they were guided by the earlier circular of the CBEC clarifying that repacking of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sued under the authority Ministry of Finance Circular No. 7/90-CXT, dated 7-3-1990 a copy of which has been filed alongwith the appeal papers clarified that Glucose-D manufactured out of duty paid Dextrose Monohydrate by blending with 0.6% Calcium Phosphate and Vitamin D and packed in pouches or printed cartons would be classifiable under sub-heading 1702.21. The Collector's decision classifying the product question under 1702.29 is apparently in conflict with this circular. The percentage of anhydrous dextrose would determine the correct classification as between 1702.21 and 1702.29. Information in this regard is however not available on record. This has to be decided on a factual basis. There is however no support for the appellant from t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates