Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Supreme Court: RBD Palm Stearin classified under Chapter 38.</h1> <h3>CCE, C and Service Tax Versus Jocil Ltd.</h3> The Supreme Court held that the imported goods should be classified under Chapter 38 of the Eight-digit Tariff Schedule as 'RBD Palm Stearin' under Tariff ... Classification - to whether cargo imported is classifiable as non-edible Industrial Grade Crude Palm Stearin falling under Ch. Sub Heading No. 15 11 90 90 or as 'RBD Palm Stearin' falling under Tariff Item No. 38 23 11 12 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Held that: - the import of the CRCL opinion and the CBEC Circular needs to be understood in proper perspective. The mere fact that the CRCL opinion and the CBEC Circular (No. 81/2002 - dated 03.12.2002) affirm the chemical composition of palm stearin cannot make a case for its classification under Ch. Sub Heading No. 15 11 90 90 - The essential conclusion to be drawn from these two reference documents is that palm stearin, which is obtained from the fractionation of palm oil, is comprised mainly of triglycerides of fatty acids. The question then arises as to whether it would be appropriate to categorize the triglycerides present in the oil, viz. Palm Stearin, under Chapter 15, while bracketing the free carboxylic acids derived during the refining process under Chapter 38 , the subject matter in question is specifically identified in Ch. Sub Heading No. 38 23 11 as 'Palm Stearin', and further differentiated as 'Crude' and 'RBD' in Sub Heading Nos. 38 23 11 11 and 38 23 11 12 respectively The issue of the essential character of the subject matter in question may be resorted to only if identification under Rule 3(a) is impossible - the CBEC Circular needs to be thus harmonized with the Eight-digit First Schedule introduced vide the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Ordinance, 2003. As mentioned before, the Circular had been issued prior to the coming into force of the amended Tariff Schedule and consequently, did not have the latter as its reference point the interpretive powers of this Court are significantly curtailed by the presence of a specific enumeration in Chapter 38 of the Tariff Schedule. This Court, while deciding an issue of classification, can only adjudicate along the lines of settled norms and precedents drawn from statutory interpretation and judicial precedents Issues Involved:1. Classification of imported cargo under Tariff Items of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.2. Determination of whether the imported goods are 'Non-edible Industrial Grade Crude Palm Stearin' or 'RBD Palm Stearin.'3. Applicability and interpretation of the CBEC Circular dated 03.12.2002.4. Relevance of the Eight-digit First Schedule introduced by the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Ordinance, 2003.5. Burden of proof for classification under specific tariff headings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Imported Cargo:The primary issue was whether the imported cargo should be classified under Chapter Sub Heading No. 1511 90 90 as 'Non-edible Industrial Grade Crude Palm Stearin' or under Tariff Item No. 3823 11 12 as 'RBD Palm Stearin.' The respondent declared the goods as industrial grade Crude Palm Stearin, while the appellant classified them as RBD Palm Stearin.2. Determination of the Nature of Goods:The Chemical Examiner reported that the goods were RBD Palm Stearin with an admixture of Palm Fatty Acid Distillate (PFAD) and not crude palm stearin as declared by the importer. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs finalized the Bills of Entry accordingly and demanded differential duty. The CESTAT, however, ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the Chemical Examiner only ascertained the free fatty acids and not the triglycerides, which are crucial for classification under Chapter 15.3. Applicability and Interpretation of CBEC Circular:The CBEC Circular dated 03.12.2002 distinguished between triglycerides of fatty acids (classifiable under Chapter 15) and free fatty acids (classifiable under Chapter 38). The CESTAT relied on this circular and the opinion of the Customs and Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) to conclude that the goods should be classified under Chapter 15. However, the Supreme Court held that the Circular must be harmonized with the Eight-digit First Schedule introduced later, which clearly identified Palm Stearin under Chapter 38.4. Relevance of the Eight-digit First Schedule:The Eight-digit First Schedule, introduced by the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Ordinance, 2003, was deemed to have statutory force over the CBEC Circular. Since the goods were imported between August 2003 and November 2004, they should be classified under the Eight-digit Tariff Schedule. The Supreme Court emphasized that the specific enumeration in Chapter 38 should prevail over the general description in Chapter 15.5. Burden of Proof for Classification:The respondent argued that the onus to classify the product under a specific heading lies with the Department, citing the case of Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. The Supreme Court, however, found that the Chemical Examiner's report and the Eight-digit Tariff Schedule provided sufficient grounds to classify the goods under Chapter 38. The Court also referred to the precedent set in Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that an article with a reasonable claim to be classified under an enumerated item should not be consigned to a residuary clause.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the goods in question should be classified under Chapter 38 of the Eight-digit Tariff Schedule. The Court set aside the order of the CESTAT and restored the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), affirming the classification of the goods as RBD Palm Stearin under Tariff Item No. 3823 11 12. The appeals were allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found