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

2018 (2) TMI 998

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an pills etc. The dispute in these appeals relate to two items namely 'Rose Syrup' and 'Sarasaparilla Syrup' (Nannari syrup). The appellants were clearing the products under chapter sub heading 2001.00 claiming Nil rate of duty as both the products are prepared from parts of plant i.e. essence is extracted from rose flower for manufacture of Rose Syrup and essence taken from root of Nannari plant for manufacture of Sarasaparilla syrup. The show cause notice dt. 13.5.1997 was issued for different periods alleging that the products are rightly to be classified under 2108 and demanding duty accordingly. SCN was adjudicated and the original authority confirmed the demand. The said order was challenged before Commissioner (Appeals) and there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... isputing classification of these two products existed and was decided by the then Asst. Collector and the products were classified under CSH 2001.00 based on the chemical examination report received from the Chemical Examiner, Madras; that report was that the said items are only natural products and cannot be treated as 'sharbat'; that syrups are not flavoured with any synthetic flavouring agent and the rose petals and nannari roots are used for medicinal value only and not as a flavouring agent. 4. Ld. A.R reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that w.e.f. 16.3.95, the CETA introduced the tariff entry 2108.20 for items Sharbat; that Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 20 of the CETA which is operational from 16.3.1995 reads thu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cum duty price. In OIA dt. 21.7.2010, the Commissioner (Appeals) has in fact remanded the matter for re-quantification on the basis of cum duty price. We find that the appellant has to be given benefit of re-quantification on the basis of cum duty price from 16.3.95 onwards classifying the goods as under 2108.00. Impugned orders in the above appeals are modified to the extent of classifying the goods under Heading 2108.00 w.e.f. 16.3.95 and upholding the demand and interest thereon. Penalties are set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of re-quantification of duty giving the benefit of cum duty price to the appellant. Appeals are disposed in the above terms. (operative part of the order .....

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