Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Sri Mahalakshmi Flour Mills vs Commr. Of Cus. on 20 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(167)ELT429(TRI-BANG)
ORDER K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Sri Mahalakshmi Flour Mills/ Bangalore against the Order-in-Appeal No. C. Cus : 529/2001, dated 31-8-2001, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai.
2. Shri Laxminarayan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants stated that the appellants, M/s. Mahalakshmi Flour Mills imported "Desapped Sandal Wood (Roots)" and these were cleared under Bill of Entry No. 247147, dated 18-11-1999, by classifying the goods under Heading No. 44.03 of the Customs Tariff Act. Subsequently a Show Cause Notice was issued for changing the classification under Chapter Heading 1211.90 and demanding differential duty of Rs. 2,09,208/-. The learned Counsel disputed the classification of the goods before us on the ground that the Supreme Court in the case of Pardeep Aggarbatti v. State of Punjab reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 219 (S.C) has held that -
"Perfumery" occurring in the entry "cosmetics, perfumery and toilet goods, excluding toothpaste, tooth powder, kum-kum and soap" draws colour from the words "cosmetics and toilet goods" therein and, so read, the word "perfumery" in the said entry can refer to such articles of perfumery as are used, as cosmetics and toilet goods are, upon the person and in that context the word has no application to "dhoop" and "aggarbatti".
In the instant case, the appellants were using the "Roots" of Sandal Wood plants after powdering it for the manufacture of 'Aggarbatti'. Therefore, these roots were correctly classified under Chapter 44 and these should not be classifiable under Chapter 12 of the Customs Tariff Act.
3. Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, JDR on behalf of the Revenue pleaded that Chapter 44 of the Customs Tariff Act cover wood and articles of wood, etc. whereas Chapter 12.11 of the Customs Tariff covers - plants and parts of plants (including seeds and fruits) of a kind used primarily in perfumery, in pharmacy or for insecticidal, fungicidal or similar purposes, fresh or dried, whether or not cut, crushed or powdered". He stated that the "Sandal Wood (Roots)" are generally used for perfumery and therefore these have been correctly classified under Chapter Sub-heading 1211.90.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. From the records, we find that the appellants have imported "Desapped Sandal Wood (Roots)". The appellants have stated that the imported goods would be converted into powder and used in the manufacture of 'Aggarbatti'. Plants/parts of plants of a kind used primarily in perfumery, etc. are covered by Chapter 12 of the Customs Tariff Act. Since the goods are to be used in the manufacture of 'Aggarbatti' for giving fragrance, therefore, they are primarily used for the purpose of perfumery. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pardeep Aggarbatti v. State of Punjab reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 219 (S.C.) relied upon by the appellants is not applicable in the present case as in that case the Apex Court has held that -
"When some articles are grouped together in an entry in Central Excise or Sales Tax Tariff Schedule, each word in the entry draws colour from the other words therein.
"Perfumery" occurring in the entry "cosmetics, perfumery and toilet goods, excluding toothpaste, tooth powder, kum-kum and soap" draws colour from the words "cosmetics and toilet goods" therein and, so read, the word "perfumery" in the said entry can refer to such articles of perfumery as are used, as cosmetics and toilet goods are, upon the person and in that context the word has no application to "dhoop" and "aggarbatti".
In the present case, the entry in Heading 12.11 of the Customs Tariff Act, is as under -
"plants and parts of plants (including seeds and fruits) of a kind used primarily in perfumery, in pharmacy or for insecticidal, fungicidal or similar purposes, fresh or dried, whether or not cut, crushed or powdered".
Since the Sandal Wood Roots, after being powdered, are to be used in the manufacture of 'Aggarbatti' and it can only be used as perfumery for giving fragrance, the interpretation of the perfumery as given by the Apex Court in the case of Pardeep Aggarbatti (supra) is not applicable in the present case. We do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the party. Accordingly the appeal is rejected.