TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Classification dispute over Coconut Oil - Edible vs. Hair use, Circular vs. Tribunal rulings</h1> <h3>M/s DABUR INDIA LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX</h3> M/s DABUR INDIA LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX - TMI Issues:Correct classification of Coconut Oil packed in 200 M.L. plastic containers under Chapter 15 as Edible Coconut Oil or Chapter 33 as 'preparation for use on the hair'.Analysis:The dispute in the appeal revolves around the classification of Coconut Oil packed in small containers. The appellant argues for classification under Chapter 15 as Edible Coconut Oil, while the Revenue classifies it under Chapter 33 as a 'preparation for use on the hair.' The Board's Circular No. 890/10/2009-CX dated 03/06/2009 specified that Coconut Oil in containers up to 200 M.L. should be classified as hair oil under heading 3305, not under Chapter 15. Following this circular, the appellant cleared the product under Chapter 33 classification, paid duty under protest, and later sought a refund, leading to the current appeal.The Commissioner (Appeals) disregarded Tribunal decisions predating the Board Circular, favoring the Circular over Tribunal decisions. However, the appellant contends that the Tribunal decisions, including the case of Capital Technologies Ltd. & Others vs. CCE, Tirupati, did not align with the Circular. The Kerala High Court decision in Marico Limited vs. Union of India emphasized that Revenue should adhere to Tribunal decisions unless appealed to the Apex court. Thus, the matter should have been decided based on Tribunal decisions rather than the Board Circular.Given the above, the case is remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority for a fresh assessment. The Authority must consider the impact of amendments in Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 33 and Section Note 2 of Section VI, as highlighted by the Departmental representative. Additionally, the Authority should review whether the Board Circular and its amendments were previously addressed by the Tribunal. The ongoing challenge of the Circular in the Allahabad High Court, transferred to the Apex court, and its consideration by the Kerala High Court, should also be taken into account.Furthermore, the Adjudicating Authority must examine the factual accuracy of the label on the container indicating the Coconut Oil as 'Edible,' particularly concerning the 200 M.L. pack. The reevaluation is necessary to determine the correct classification based on factual and legal considerations, including various Tribunal decisions and the unjust enrichment aspect. The final decision will be contingent upon the legal and factual analysis conducted during the reconsideration process.
TaxTMI 