Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Anil Products Ltd vs Commissioner Of C.Ex. & S.Tax on 28 February, 2017
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.E/1227/2003-DB [Arising out of OIA No.21-24/203/CCE/COMMR-A/AHD, dt.07.02.203, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), C.Ex. & S.Tax, Ahmedabad-II] M/s Anil Products Ltd Appellant Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.Tax, Ahmedabad-II Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Shri Devan Parikh, Sr.Advocate, Shri R. Vyas, Advocate For Respondent: Shri A. Mishra, A.R. For approval and signature:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. ASHOK K. ARYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 27.01.2017 Date of Decision:28.02.2017 Order No. A/10474/2017, dt.28.02.2017 Per: Ashok K. Arya M/s Anil Products is in appeal against OIA No.21-24/203/CCE/COMMR-A/AHD, dt.07.02.203, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), C.Ex. & S.Tax, Ahmedabad-II, whereunder the product viz. Anhydrous Dextrose I.P. has been held to be classifiable under Chapter Heading No.29.42.00 of First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
2. The Appellant has been represented by the learned Senior Advocate, Shri Devan Parikh, and the Revenue has been represented by the learned Authorized Representative, Shri A. Mishra.
3. After careful consideration of the facts on record and the submissions of both sides, it is noted that the classification of the item in question viz. Anhydrous Dextrose I.P. has been discussed and decided in following case laws:-
i) Maize Products Vs CCE Ahmedabad 2009 (244) ELT 275 (Tri-Ahmd)
ii) CCE Indore Vs Tirupati Starch & Chemicals Ltd 2005 (185) ELT 356 (Tri-Del)
4. The CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of Maize Products (supra) decided that the product viz. Anhydrous Dextrose deserves classification under CH No.17.02 of Central Excise Tariff and not under CH No.29.42.00. In this regard, CESTAT Ahmedabad inter alia in the said judgment observes as under:-
9.?At this stage, we also take note of the latest decision of the Tribunal in case of CCE, Indore v. Tirupathi Starch & Chemicals Ltd. - 2005 (185) E.L.T. 356 (Tri-Del.), wherein after taking note of the Tribunals decision in case of M/s. Anil Starch Product Ltd. as also Honble Mumbai High Court judgment in case of Tata Exports Ltd., it was held that Dextrose is properly classifiable under Heading 17.2. For better appreciation, we reproduce Para 4 of the said judgment.
4.?If we revert to Chapter 17 Heading 17.02, it is quite apparent that the Dextrose which is nothing but a chemically pure glucose, stands fully covered thereunder. This heading includes other sugars, including chemically pure lactose, maltose, glucose and fructose in any form. What has been excluded by the Heading 29.40, finds inclusion in this Heading 17.02. As per HSN Notes also, the Dextrose being nothing more than chemically pure glucose, falls within the ambit of Heading 17.02. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for classifying the item in question (Dextrose) under this heading is perfectly valid and justiciable under the law. The learned DR has no doubt referred to the judgment of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Tata Exports Ltd. v. UOI - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 245 (Bom.), wherein the Dextrose were held to be classifiable under Heading 29.01 of the Customs Tariff. But this judgment has no application to the case in hand on account of the subsequent amendments made in Chapter Headings 17 & 29. Similarly, for the reasons recorded above, the law laid down in the case of M/s. Anil Starch Products Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 664 (T), is also not attracted to the facts of the case in hand. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly distinguished and not applied the ratio of the law laid down in the case of CCE v. Sukhjit Starch & Chemicals Ltd. - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 753, on account of the amendments made in the above said Headings of Chapter 17 & 29.
10.?In view of the above foregoing discussion, the impugned order holding classification of the Dextrose as under 29.42 is set aside. Appeal is allowed accordingly.
4.1 The CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of Maize Products (supra) has referred to the judgment of CESTAT Delhi in the case of CCE Indore Vs Tirupati Starch & Chemicals Ltd (supra) and with the support of said decision, held that the item Anhydrous Dextrose is rightly classifiable under CH No.17.02 of Central Excise Tariff. It is to be noted that the Revenue went in appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court against the decision of CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of Maize Products (supra) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dt.08.10.2010, passed in Civil Appeal No.257/2010 refers to the judgment of CESTAT Delhi in the case of Tirupati Starch & Chemicals Ltd (supra) and observed that there is no ground to entertain the appeal of the Revenue.
4.2 Consequently, in view of the judgment of CESTAT Delhi in the case of Tirupati Starch & Chemicals Ltd (supra) and that of CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of Maize Products (supra), the right classification of the item in question viz. Anhydrous Dextrose I.P. is Chapter Heading No.17.02 and not Chapter Heading No.2942.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.
5. In the result, the orders on the subject matter passed by the lower Revenue Authorities holding the classification of the product viz. Anhydrous Dextrose I.P. under Chapter Heading No.2942.00 are set aside and the Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Pronounced in the open court on 28.02.2017) (Dr. D.M. Misra) (Ashok K. Arya) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical) Cbb 4