2018 (12) TMI 1842 - AT - Central Excise

Successful appeal reclassifies 'Potato Flakes' for nil duty, overturning Revenue's 5% duty classification. Precedent upheld.

The appellant successfully argued for the classification of 'Potato Flakes' under Chapter 1105 20 00, resulting in nil duty, as opposed to Revenue's ... Classification of goods - Potato Flakes - classified under Chapter 1105 20 00 or under Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985? - HELD THAT:- The appeal dismissed as in-fructuous - However, it is made clear that the settlement of dispute on the classification in favour of the assessee would be equally applicable to the present two appeals which have been dismissed for technical reasons of having become in-fructuous. Issues:Classification dispute of 'Potato Flakes' under Chapter 1105 20 00 vs. Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Provisional release of seized goods under Chapter 20; Appeal against quantification of duty by Assistant Commissioner.Analysis:Issue 1: Classification of 'Potato Flakes'In Appeal No. E/70338/2016-EX(DB), the dispute revolves around the classification of 'Potato Flakes' by the appellant under Chapter 1105 20 00, attracting nil duty, as opposed to the Revenue's classification under Chapter 20 with a 5% ad valorem duty. The Tribunal had previously ruled in Final Order No. 70806-70807/2017 and Final Order No. 71027/2018 that 'Potato Flakes' fall under Tariff Item No. 1105 20 00. Consequently, based on the precedent set by these decisions, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.Issue 2: Provisional Release of Seized GoodsRegarding Appeal No. E/70013/2016-EX(DB), the appellant sought provisional release of seized goods under Chapter 20, subject to stringent conditions imposed by the Commissioner, including payment of duty. Subsequently, the appellant complied with the conditions and deposited the amount. As the classification issue was resolved in their favor, the appeal was deemed infructuous, and the appellant planned to seek consequential benefits from the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.Issue 3: Appeal Against Quantification of DutyIn Appeal No. E/70675/2016-EX(DB), the Assistant Commissioner quantified the duty to be deposited by the appellant based on the provisional release order. The appellant's appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected, leading to the present appeal. However, as the classification dispute was resolved in favor of the appellant, rendering the appeal infructuous, it was also dismissed. The settlement of the classification dispute in favor of the appellant was deemed applicable to all three appeals, even those dismissed for technical reasons.In conclusion, all three appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the classification dispute of 'Potato Flakes' being the central issue resolved in favor of the appellant based on previous Tribunal decisions.