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>Supreme Court orders Tribunal reconsideration on Guar Dal Powder classification, highlighting need for resolution of conflicts</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs Versus M/s Kraps Chem Pvt Ltd And Another</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs Versus M/s Kraps Chem Pvt Ltd And Another - 2015 (319) E.L.T. 622 (SC) Issues: Classification of product under Chapter Heading 11.01 or 1301.10, Conflict of opinion between two Tribunal decisions, Referral to larger Bench for resolution, Consideration of 'manufacture' in the caseThe Supreme Court judgment dealt with the classification issue of Guar Dal Powder under Chapter Heading 11.01 or 1301.10 for excise duty purposes. The assessee argued that the product should be classified under Chapter Heading 11.01, attracting nil duty, as it is a product of the milling industry. However, the Revenue contended that the product, after the milling process, should be classified under Chapter Heading 1301.10 as 'Gum,' resulting in a demand for excise duty, penalty, and interest. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, classifying the product under Chapter Heading 11.01 as a product of the milling industry.The main contention raised by the appellants was regarding a conflict of opinion between two Tribunal decisions, one involving 'Guar Gum' and the other 'Tamarind Kernel powder,' on whether such products should be classified under Chapter Heading 11.01 or 1301.10. The appellants argued that the Tribunal should have referred the matter to a larger Bench for resolution instead of relying on a specific decision, which they claimed was impermissible.The Supreme Court agreed with the appellants' submission, noting the conflict of opinion between the two Tribunal decisions. The Court emphasized that in such situations, the proper course of action for the Tribunal was to refer the matter to a larger Bench to resolve the conflict. Additionally, the Court highlighted that in a related case involving Hindustan Gum and Chemicals Ltd., certain aspects were not properly addressed by the Tribunal, leading to a remand back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the Tribunal, directing that the matter be heard by a larger Bench. The Court specifically mentioned that the issue of whether the process constitutes 'manufacture' should be reconsidered by the larger Bench, considering the unresolved aspect in the Hindustan Gum and Chemicals Ltd. case. To expedite the process, the Court instructed the larger Bench to decide the matter within six months from the judgment date, effectively disposing of the appeals accordingly.
TaxTMI 