Classification based on undisclosed material failed; maltodextrin demand fell, while maltodex issues were remanded for fresh hearing.

Classification disputes over maltodextrin and maltodex turned on the description in the assessee's certificate and classification list, and on whether the revenue relied on material effectively disclosed for rebuttal. The demand on maltodextrin was found unsustainable because the record supported the assessee's declared description and the adverse inference could not stand, so the demand failed on merits and limitation. The maltodex classification and short levy were not upheld because the decisive test report had not been properly put to the assessee, and the connected issues of valuation, Modvat credit, comparable goods and non-marketability required fresh consideration in de novo proceedings with a full hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether maltodextrin was correctly classified and whether the demand raised in respect of it survived in view of the certificate and the facts on record; (ii) Whether the classification and short levy in respect of maltodex could be sustained when reliance was placed on material not effectively put to the assessee, and whether the related questions of valuation, Modvat credit and excisability required fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether maltodextrin was correctly classified and whether the demand raised in respect of it survived in view of the certificate and the facts on record.

Analysis: The classification dispute turned on whether the product could be treated as commercial glucose or was entitled to treatment as a bulk drug under the certificate produced by the assessee. The record showed that the certificate and the classification list did contain the relevant description, and the apprehension that the product had been misdeclared as a different article was not borne out. On that basis, the adverse inference drawn against the assessee could not be sustained. The demand for the disputed period therefore failed both on the aspect of limitation and on merits.

Conclusion: The demand relating to maltodextrin was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the classification and short levy in respect of maltodex could be sustained when reliance was placed on material not effectively put to the assessee, and whether the related questions of valuation, Modvat credit and excisability required fresh consideration.

Analysis: The classification of maltodex was founded substantially on a test report that was disputed as having been supplied only after the hearing had concluded. Since the assessee did not have an effective opportunity to rebut that material, the classification based on it could not be upheld. The record also showed that the connected questions of valuation, availability of comparable goods, Modvat credit and even the plea of non-marketability had not been properly examined. Those matters required reconsideration by the jurisdictional Commissioner in fresh proceedings with opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The classification and short levy in respect of maltodex were set aside for de novo adjudication, with the connected issues left for fresh decision.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted to the assessee in part by wiping out the duty demand on maltodextrin and sending the maltodex dispute back for fresh adjudication on a full hearing record.

Ratio Decidendi: A classification and duty demand cannot be sustained where the basis of decision is material not effectively disclosed to the assessee, and a demand founded on a misreading of the description and certificate on record fails both on merits and limitation.

---