TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (7) TMI 310
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the benefit of Exemption under Notification No. 8/95, dated 9-2-1995 and 8/96, dated 23-7-1996. He has, therefore, set aside the Orders-in-Original and allowed the appeal. 2. Revenue appeals on the ground that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has basically gone by the purity of the end product as dry matter which a test of the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad on record showed to be 99.4% on dry basis. However, as has been submitted by the learned DR, Shri S. Sankaravadivelu, the Central Excise Tariff in this regard, though based on the Harmonised System of Nomenclature, does not contain any details which could help to make the right classification between 29.05 as claimed by the respondents and 38.23 as claimed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly obtained by the hydrogenation of glucose or invert sugar. 3. Learned DR further submits that since in the respondent's case the manufacturing process does not commence with the use of glucose or invert sugar, which syrup would contain high abundance of mono saccharides, therefore, the product was classified under 38.23 by the original authority correctly. As against that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has instead of considering the details of process of manufacture, merely based his conclusions on the purity of the end product by assuming that such a purity could not have been achieved unless only glucose syrup containing mono saccharides was used. Learned DR submits there is no evidence on record to support this presumption ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inction between the end product falling under either 29.05 or 38.23 in terms of the HSN Notes extracted above, is a process which is deliberately employed to take out the disaccharides and poly saccharides content in the syrup even if the syrup may be dextrose or glucose. On this basis, learned Advocate submits that since the process of manufacture employed by the respondents ensured that immediately before the hydrogenation stage the syrup contains abundance of mono saccharides by employing a process of separation, therefore, even as per the HSN Notes, the product would be classifiable under 29.05 in view of Note-1 to Chapter 29. Learned Advocate, therefore, goes on to submit that since the product would fall under Chapter 29 as a single i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed di saccharides and poly saccharides. What is material, even as per the HSN Notes, is that a deliberate process of separation was undertaken by the respondents to produce a syrup which had an abundance of mono saccharides. That this process of separation was undertaken has been clearly claimed by the respondents in this write-up. 8.  We have carefully considered the rival submissions and the records of the case. We are of the considered opinion that in cases where the Tariff description read with the Notes and Explanations provided in the Central Excise Tariff is not a complete guide to help us to arrive at the appropriate classification of an item, there is no harm in resorting to consulting the Harmonised System of Nomenclature ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n view of the separation process described in para 6 of their note. Therefore, we have no other alternative but to remand the matter to the original authority with the directions that adequate enquiry/tests be got conducted through technically qualified persons/laboratories/agency to examine the factual accuracy of the contention of the respondents in this behalf as submitted by the learned Advocate above. After the correct facts in this behalf are ascertained and kept on record, the learned Assistant Commissioner shall proceed to pass a speaking order after hearing the respondents afresh. In this de novo proceedings the respondents shall be at liberty to submit any additional evidence with respect to this process of manufacture before the ....