The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ordered fresh adjudication on the classification of bhusi of pulses waste under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ( CTA ).
The appellants in the present matter are RM Trading Company and Kitchen Xpress Overseas Limited.
The issue involved in the present case is whether the goods in question i.e. bhusi/bhuki of pulses/pulses waste cleared from Kandla SEZ classifiable under Chapter heading 07139099 or 11061000 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and consequently whether the appellant is entitled to exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 07.03.2012.
The case of the department is that the goods cleared by the appellants from Kandla SEZ are Pulses Grinding (Atta of Pulses)- Powder hence the same is not classifiable under Chapter heading 07139099 but classifiable under heading 11061000 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
S.J. Vyas Counsel appearing submitted that the appellants do not have a milling industry therefore the product in question is arising in the usual course of processing of pulses and the same is in the form of bhusi/bhuki, tukdi of pulses. Therefore, the same is not atta and cannot be classified under Chapter heading 11061000 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The Counsel further submitted that no further process is carried out and therefore the product in question remains as pulses in tukdi or in coarse form and the correct classification is under Chapter heading 07139099 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Kalpesh P Shah, Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order.
The Coram consisting of Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Raju, Member (Technical)observed that the appellant declared the product as Pulses Grinding (Atta of pulses)-Powder and with this description, it’s prima facie appears that the goods are not in the form of pulses but in the form of Atta or Powder. However, the Counsel submitted that the same is not arising out of the milling process as they do not have a milling industry.
The Bench also noted that “In the interest of the principle of natural justice, the Adjudicating Authority should re-consider the matter in the light of the affidavit submitted by the appellant’s Director. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
