Tariff classification of partly skimmed milk powder under the residuary entry, with excise duty collection treated as without legal basis.

Partly skimmed milk powder was treated as a distinct commercial commodity from whole milk powder and skimmed milk powder, with tariff structure and allied standards recognising separate fat-content categories. On that basis, the article states that the product did not fall within sub-heading 0401.13 and instead belonged to the residuary sub-heading 0401.19. It further notes that, once the commodity was placed in the residuary entry, the excise levy had no legal basis and duty collection was without jurisdiction, with refund following for duty collected from 1-3-1989.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether partly skimmed milk powder is classifiable under sub-heading 0401.13 of Chapter 4 of the Central Excise Tariff or under the residuary sub-heading 0401.19; (ii) whether excise duty could be levied and retained on the commodity and the collected duty was refundable.

Issue (i): Whether partly skimmed milk powder is classifiable under sub-heading 0401.13 of Chapter 4 of the Central Excise Tariff or under the residuary sub-heading 0401.19.

Analysis: The tariff itself treated milk as including partially or completely skimmed milk, but the specific levy provision covered skimmed milk powder and did not separately include partly skimmed milk powder. The Court compared the tariff with Indian Standard specifications, Prevention of Food Adulteration standards, and international standards, all of which recognised whole milk powder, partly skimmed milk powder, and skimmed milk powder as distinct commodities with different fat contents. Since partly skimmed milk powder was commercially and legally distinct and was not specifically brought within sub-heading 0401.13, it fell within the residuary entry.

Conclusion: Partly skimmed milk powder is not covered by sub-heading 0401.13 and is classifiable under sub-heading 0401.19, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether excise duty could be levied and retained on the commodity and the collected duty was refundable.

Analysis: Once the commodity was held to fall under the residuary duty-free entry, the levy itself lacked legal basis. The earlier administrative order did not bar the writ challenge, and the absence of a valid determination after the later levy meant that collection of duty continued without jurisdiction. Refund followed from the wrong levy and the writ jurisdiction was properly invoked.

Conclusion: Excise duty was not leviable on the commodity, the collection was without jurisdiction, and the duty collected from 1-3-1989 was refundable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The commodity was held to be outside the dutiable skimmed milk powder entry, and the respondents were restrained from collecting excise duty and directed to refund the amount collected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff entry specifically omits a separately recognised commercial commodity, and the commodity is shown by the tariff structure and allied standards to be distinct from the named dutiable goods, it falls under the residuary entry rather than the specific levy entry.

---