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>Tribunal Upholds Nil Duty Rate for 'CRAX Corn Rings' & 'Natkhat Wheat Puffs'</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad Versus M/s DFM Foods Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad Versus M/s DFM Foods Ltd. - TMI Issues:Classification of products under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Heading 19.04 or Sub-heading 19059030Detailed Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Ghaziabad. The respondent-assessee claimed the classification of their products, 'CRAX Corn Rings' and 'Natkhat Wheat Puffs', under subheading No. 19059030 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, attracting a Nil rate of duty. However, the department argued that these products should be classified under Tariff subheading No. 19041090, attracting a duty rate of 16% adv. The Assistant Commissioner directed the respondents to pay duty at 16% on the products under Tariff Sub-Heading No. 190410.90. The respondent appealed this order before the Commissioner (Appeals) (Para 2).The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the classification issue based on Central Excise Tariff Heading 19.04 and the HSN Explanatory Notes. The Commissioner found that the products did not satisfy the conditions required for classification under Heading 19.04. The manufacturing process involved extrusion rather than swelling or roasting of cereals exclusively. The Commissioner referred to previous judgments, including one by Hon'ble CEGAT, New Delhi, to support the decision. The Commissioner also considered the insertion of subheading 19059030 in the Central Excise Tariff Act, prescribing a Nil rate of duty for 'extruded or expanded products savoury or salted'. Based on the analysis of the manufacturing process and ingredients, the Commissioner held that the products should be classified under Tariff Sub-Heading No. 19059030 and not under Heading No. 19.04 (Sub-heading No. 19041090) (Para 3).The Revenue-appellants challenged the Order-in-Appeal before the Tribunal. During the hearing, the respondent's counsel highlighted a previous case involving Frito Lay India, which had been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal, considering the decisions of both the Tribunal and the Supreme Court in the Frito Lay India case, dismissed the present appeal of the revenue. The respondent was entitled to consequential benefits as per the law (Para 6).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
