Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether maize starch manufactured by the respondent was classifiable under Chapter Heading 3809 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and whether the Revenue could sustain its appeal by shifting to an alternative classification when the proposed revision of grounds was not permitted.
Analysis: The product had been examined by the adjudicating authority, which concluded that it could not be treated as a preparation for use in the textile industry and therefore would not fall under Chapter Heading 3809. The Revenue sought to argue that, once Heading 11.03 was ruled out, the goods could be classified under Heading 35.05, but the request to revise the grounds of appeal was rejected. The Tribunal held that, where a fresh basis of classification is sought to be introduced, the proper course is issuance of a fresh show cause notice and not a change of grounds in appeal. It further held that tariff classification must be determined by applying the interpretative rules of the tariff schedule and not by resorting to a different heading merely because the originally suggested one fails.
Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was rejected and the respondent's classification was left undisturbed.