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 Collector's Order on Product Classification, Emphasizes Marketability & Stability</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH Versus NESTLE (INDIA) LTD.</h3> COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH Versus NESTLE (INDIA) LTD. - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 688 (Tribunal) Issues:Interpretation of the classification of a product under the Central Excise Tariff based on its composition and marketability.Analysis:The judgment deals with an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the classification of a product called 'preparation of Maltose and Dextrose.' The main issue revolves around whether this product, with reducing sugar content less than 50% by weight, is marketable and excisable. The Department argues that the product is the result of manufacture, stable, marketable, and falls under specific tariff items. The Tribunal examined the relevant tariff provisions, including Tariff Item 1E(1) and CET sub-heading 1702.30, which cover glucose and other sugars. It noted a previous decision regarding non-marketable products and their excisability.The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. It referenced a previous case involving maltodextrin solution and highlighted the importance of marketability in determining excisability. The respondents claimed that their product, derived from enzymatic hydrolysis of tapioca/maize starch, is unstable due to retrogradation at room temperature, making it unsuitable for use. The Department's contention that the product is not hydrolyzed starch was contradicted by its own show cause notice, which classified the product as a modified starch. The Tribunal also addressed the discrepancy in solid content between the disputed product and maltodextrin solution.In its analysis, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of marketability and stability in determining excisability. It found that the product in question was unstable and prone to retrogradation, aligning with the previous decision on non-marketable products. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Collector's order based on the product's characteristics and marketability. The decision reaffirmed the principle that unstable products with specific characteristics may not be considered excisable under the Central Excise Tariff, highlighting the significance of stability and marketability in such classifications.
TaxTMI 