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 of 'grain cleaning and drying machine' under tariff entries 84.37 upheld by CESTAT CHENNAI</h1> <h3>M/s. Vetal Textiles & Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Coimbatore</h3> M/s. Vetal Textiles & Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Coimbatore - 2017 (7) G.S.T.L. 255 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues: Classification of goods under tariff entry 84.37 or 84.19In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the issue at hand revolved around the classification of the goods, specifically a 'grain cleaning and drying machine,' under either tariff entry 84.37 or 84.19. The appellant contended that the goods should be classified under 84.37 as they are used by the milling industry for cleaning and drying purposes. On the other hand, the Revenue argued for classification under 84.19, emphasizing the scope of the entry covering machinery used for processes involving temperature changes.Analysis:The Tribunal delved into a detailed analysis of the two tariff entries to determine the appropriate classification for the impugned goods. The appellant's argument was centered on the specific usage of the goods in the milling industry, which aligned more closely with the description provided under tariff entry 84.37. They emphasized that the goods were primarily used for cleaning and drying purposes in the milling industry, making them rightly classifiable under 84.37. The Tribunal noted the importance of the purpose for which the machinery was designed and used in determining its classification.On the other hand, the Revenue's contention favored classification under tariff entry 84.19, citing the machinery's functions related to heating and other processes specified within the entry. However, the Tribunal pointed out a crucial flaw in the Revenue's argument, highlighting that the nature and character of the impugned goods were not clearly linked to the requirements of tariff entry 84.19. The lack of specific details in the show cause notice regarding how the machinery satisfied the criteria of 84.19 weakened the Revenue's case.The Tribunal further scrutinized the machinery's characteristics and intended purpose as outlined in the tariff entries. Despite the presence of terms like 'drying' in entry 84.19, the Tribunal emphasized that the overall intention was to cover machinery meant for the treatment of materials through various processes. It was noted that the impugned goods did not align with the intended purpose of entry 84.19 but rather served the specific needs of the milling industry, falling more aptly under 84.37.Moreover, the Tribunal highlighted the absence of technical tests or expert opinions conducted by the Revenue to demonstrate that the impugned goods were unsuitable for use in the milling industry. The lack of concrete evidence regarding the machinery's purpose, capacity, and usability in the milling industry worked in favor of the appellant, leading to the benefit of the doubt being granted to them. As a result of the comprehensive analysis and the lack of substantial evidence from the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of aligning the classification with the actual purpose and usage of the goods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
