TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether soya nuts and wheat puffs cleared in bulk packs of 10 kg./15 kg. to ICDS were classifiable as goods put up in unit containers and ordinarily intended for sale, or under the residuary / other headings claimed by the assessee; (ii) Whether the demand, interest and penalties relating to clearances made in unit containers with brand name required fresh quantification and de novo adjudication.
Issue (i): Whether soya nuts and wheat puffs cleared in bulk packs of 10 kg./15 kg. to ICDS were classifiable as goods put up in unit containers and ordinarily intended for sale, or under the residuary / other headings claimed by the assessee.
Analysis: Bulk packs supplied to ICDS for free distribution could not be treated as unit containers in trade parlance, which contemplates convenient retail packs ordinarily intended for sale. Since the goods were dispatched in jumbo packs marked not for sale, the bulk clearances were not classifiable as goods put up in unit containers. On that basis, soya nuts were held classifiable under Heading 2107.99, and wheat puffs under Heading 1904.90, for the bulk ICDS clearances.
Conclusion: The bulk clearances to ICDS were not classifiable under the unit-container headings; the assessee succeeded on classification for those clearances.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand, interest and penalties relating to clearances made in unit containers with brand name required fresh quantification and de novo adjudication.
Analysis: The Tribunal noted that a small portion of the clearances were made in unit containers bearing the brand name and would not qualify for the benefit extended to ICDS bulk supplies. Since the impugned demand mixed exempt bulk clearances with dutiable unit-container clearances, the exact liability had to be reworked by the adjudicating authority after giving the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing.
Conclusion: The matter was remitted for re-quantification and fresh adjudication limited to the unit-container clearances, with the questions of duty, interest and penalty left open for those clearances.
Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief on the principal classification dispute for bulk ICDS supplies, but liability for unit-container clearances was left for fresh determination by the adjudicating authority.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods supplied in bulk packs for free distribution, and not ordinarily intended for sale, are not classifiable as unit-container goods merely because they are packed and delivered in measurable quantities; only the separately identifiable unit-container clearances remain dutiable on their own classification.
TaxTMI 
