Case Digest: Rulings on Customs Tariff Classification of Imported Goods

Customs tariff classification is the process of categorizing imported goods under specific codes from the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN), developed by the World Customs Organization (WCO).
India follows its version known as the Indian Trade Classification (Harmonized System) or ITC-HS, which uses 8-digit codes; the first six digits match international standards, and the last two address domestic requirements. This system is governed by the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, essential for identifying applicable duties, taxes, and import policies.
Recent Policy Changes in Budget 2025-26
The Union Budget 2025-26, presented on February 1, 2025, introduced major changes. The number of basic customs duty (BCD) rates was reduced from fifteen to eight, and life-saving drugs were exempted from BCD. This simplification reflects the evolving nature of classification and emphasizes the need for businesses to remain informed. Specific exemptions were introduced for lithium-ion cell manufacturing equipment and critical minerals, supporting high-tech and green industries.
Importance of Accurate Classification
Correct classification determines the applicable tax rates:
- Basic Customs Duty (BCD) ranges from 0% to 100%
- IGST is usually 5%, 12%, 18%, or 28%
- Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS) is typically 10% on BCD
For example, on a Rs. 100 assessable value with a 7.5% BCD, the total duty payable may exceed Rs. 27 when IGST and SWS are included. Incorrect classification can lead to overpayment, unnecessary costs, or underpayment, resulting in penalties, fines, or legal action.
Facilitating Trade and Ensuring Compliance
Accurate classification also ensures faster customs clearance and smooth regulatory compliance. The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) has digitized import-export policy searches for all 8-digit HS codes. In May 2025, DGFT updated its policies in line with Budget 2025, including changes for precious metals, which introduced new HS codes for gold dore, silver dore, and platinum. These updates help track goods better and prevent duty evasion.
Supporting Economic Policy and Legal Protection
Classification supports economic planning by ensuring accurate trade statistics and aids policy decisions. It also protects businesses from legal risks. Misclassification is a frequent cause of customs disputes, but businesses can avoid penalties by voluntarily disclosing and settling shortfalls.
Win for Samsung: CESTAT Classifies Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Mobile Phones as 'Parts', Attracting 12% GST instead of 28% [Read Order]
M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs PrincipalCommissioner of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) — 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 695
The New Delhi Principal Bench of CESTAT ruled in favour of Samsung India Electronics, holding that lithium-ion batteries imported for use in mobile phone manufacturing qualify as "parts" under Entry No. 203 of Schedule II to the IGST Rate Notification and attract 12% IGST. The department had classified the goods as “electric accumulators” under Heading 8507 60 00, subject to higher rates of 28% and 18%, and raised a differential tax demand.
The bench, comprising Justice Dilip Gupta and Member Hemambika R. Priya, observed that the batteries, being covered under Chapter 85 and intended for mobile phone manufacturing, fell within the correct classification. It clarified that the IGST rate schedule is a taxing provision and must be interpreted strictly. The tribunal rejected the department’s argument against use-based classification.
Win for Adyar Ananda Bhavan: CESTAT Rules "Heat Wave Frying System" Classifies as Other Machinery, Not Kitchen Machines [Read Order]
Commissioner of Customs vs M/s. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets &Snacks CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 588
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled in favour of Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets & Snacks, holding that its imported "Heat Wave Frying System" (Namkeen System HWF 2412) is classifiable under CTH 84388020 as "other machinery" rather than under CTH 84198120 as "other kitchen machines." The dispute arose when customs authorities reclassified the equipment and demanded differential duty, arguing it was kitchen equipment used in food preparation. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously accepted the appellant’s classification and reversed the department’s order.
The tribunal, comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar, observed that the product was clearly intended for industrial-scale snack production and not kitchen use. The catalogue and commercial documentation supported this conclusion. The bench noted that the headings for “fryers” and “kitchen machines” were not appropriate given the automated, large-scale nature of the equipment. It upheld the classification under CTH 84388020
Win for Dabur India: CESTAT Classifies ‘Lemoneez’ as Fruit Juice Attracting 12% GST, Rejects Soft Drink Concentrate Label [Read Order]
M/s. Dabur India Limited vs Commissioner of CustomsCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 494
The Kolkata Bench of CESTAT held that Dabur India’s ‘Lemoneez’ is classifiable as fruit juice under Tariff Item 2009 31 00, attracting 12% GST, and not as a soft drink concentrate under Heading 2106 90 19. The tribunal found that the product, made from lemon juice concentrate and water, retained the character of natural juice and did not contain ingredients typical of soft drink bases.
Rejecting the department’s claim of misclassification and suppression, the bench ruled that classification must be based on the product’s composition and not its end use. It set aside the duty demand, penalties, and fines, and allowed the appeal in full.
Havells India Wins: CESTAT Classifies MCPCBs as LED Components, Not Independent Lighting Fixtures [Read Order]
Principal Commissioner, Customs vs Havells India LtdCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 274
The New Delhi Bench of CESTAT upheld Havells India’s classification of Metal Core Printed Circuit Boards (MCPCBs) under CTH 85340000 as LED components, rejecting the department’s attempt to classify them as independent lighting fixtures under CTH 94054090. The tribunal found that the goods, used in the manufacture of LED lamps, are not finished lighting products and hence not covered under Chapter 94.
The bench, comprising Dr. Rachna Gupta and Hemambika R. Priya, observed that MCPCBs require further assembly and are covered by Chapter 85, which deals with printed circuit boards. Relying on past rulings in similar cases, the tribunal clarified that GST notifications cannot override the Customs Tariff Act for classification. The department’s appeal was dismissed, and the original classification and NIL duty benefit were upheld.
CESTAT Classifies Siapton 10L and Isabion as Fertilizers under Tariff 3101 00 99 Citing Primary Nutrient-Based Composition [Read Order]
P I Industries vs Commissioner of C.E. & S.T.-Surat-IICITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1014
The Ahmedabad Bench of CESTAT held that Siapton 10L and Isabion are classifiable as fertilizers under Tariff Item 3101 00 99, rejecting the Revenue’s claim that they were plant growth regulators (PGRs) under Heading 3808. The tribunal found that these products contain amino acids and peptides and function primarily as nutrient providers, not as agents modifying plant physiology. It also relied on the Fertilizer Control Order, 2021, which classifies such bio-stimulants as fertilizers.
The bench comprising Ramesh Nair and Raju observed that PGRs must actively regulate physiological functions, which was not established in this case. The tribunal concluded that the products promoted healthy plant growth by improving nutrient absorption and did not meet the criteria of PGRs. The excise duty demand under Tariff 3808 93 40 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.
"Motor Controllers" Classifiable as "Parts of Electric Motors" For Import Valuation: CESTAT Upholds Customs Commissioner’s Order [Read Order]
Commissioner of Customs (Port) vs M/s. Aahana Commerce Pvt. Ltd.CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 782
The Kolkata Bench of CESTAT upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s ruling that motor controllers used in electric vehicles are classifiable under CTH 8503 0090 as parts of electric motors. The tribunal rejected the customs department’s reclassification under CTH 8708 9900, which applies to motor vehicle parts, and accepted the declared value submitted by the importer, M/s Aahana Commerce Pvt. Ltd.
The bench, comprising Ashok Jindal and K. Anpazhakan, observed that motor controllers perform essential functions like starting, stopping, and regulating speed, directly linking them to the operation of electric motors. It held that classification must reflect the functional role of the item and dismissed the department’s appeal, noting the lack of evidence to support claims of misdeclaration or incorrect valuation.
‘Interface Cards’ Used in Cloud Engine Switches are Classifiable under ‘Optical Transport Network’: CESTAT [Read Order]
Huawei Telecommunication (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner ofCustoms (Appeals)CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1318
The Mumbai Bench of CESTAT ruled that interface cards imported by Huawei for use in cloud engine switches are classifiable under Optical Transport Network and not as standalone machines or apparatus. The tribunal accepted the appellant's contention that the interface cards function as part of a Packet Optical Transport Switch (POTS), supporting data packet processing and traffic management, and should be treated accordingly under customs classification.
The bench, comprising Mohanty and Parthiban, referred to the earlier ruling in Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. and held that such goods cannot be classified independently as machinery. It upheld the classification as Populated Printed Circuit Board Assemblies (PPCBAs) forming part of POTS, rejecting the department’s claim of misclassification and setting aside the differential duty demand and associated penalties.
Supply of Mixture and Dough of Wheat Flour, Sugar and Water, cut into specific shape, which is dried and hardened by heating attracts 28% GST: AAR [Read Order]
Ambo Agritec Pvt. Ltd.CITATION: 2019 TAXSCAN (AAR)
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) held that a non-edible dough mixture of wheat flour, sugar, and water cut into specific shapes and dried by heating is classifiable under Tariff Item 1901 20 00, attracting 28% GST. The ruling was delivered in response to an application by Ambo Agritec Pvt. Ltd., which supplied this dough to confectionery manufacturers for further baking or frying.
Rejecting the applicant’s plea to classify the product under HSN 1103 as "pellets," the AAR noted that such mixtures, even if later processed, fall within the scope of mixes and dough for bakers’ wares. The bench clarified that the product, though non-branded and non-edible at the supply stage, is intended for preparation of baked or fried goods and rightly falls under HSN 1901, thereby attracting the higher tax rate.
Imported Liquid Crystal Devices under Specific CTI Exempt from Customs Duty: CESTAT [Read Order] MIRC Electronics Limited vs Commissioner of Customs (NS-V) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 609
The Mumbai Bench of CESTAT held that 'open cells' used in LCD/LED television manufacturing, imported under CTI 9013 80 10, may qualify as "liquid crystal devices" eligible for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Customs. The tribunal found that reassessment must meet the requirements of proper classification and exemption eligibility as per Section 17(5) of the Customs Act.
The bench comprising S.K. Mohanty and M.M. Parthiban ruled that the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order could not be sustained and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit additional grounds. The tribunal directed the original authority to re-examine the eligibility for exemption under Sl. No. 29 and 30 of the notification and ensure a fair hearing before reassessment.
Classification of Product only on the basis of Nomenclature under Customs Tariff Act is Baseless: CESTAT [Read Order]
Astral Limited vs Commissioner of Customs, AhmedabadCITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 371
The Ahmedabad Bench of CESTAT ruled that classification of imported goods cannot rely solely on nomenclature and must consider chemical composition and statutory provisions. The case involved Astral Limited's import of “Kane Ace B-564,” a PVC modifier, which the department reclassified under CTH 39069090 instead of CTH 39029000, denying the claimed exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus.
The bench comprising Ramesh Nair and Raju found that the product, based on its dominant butadiene content, was rightly classifiable as a polymer of other olefins under CTH 39029000. It criticized the lower authorities for ignoring technical evidence and classifying the item merely by picking words from the product name. The tribunal allowed the appeal, restoring the exemption benefit.
Aircraft Classified as Engineering Goods Eligible for Excise Duty Exemption: CESTAT [Read Order]
Taneja Aerospace and Aviation Ltd. vs Commissioner of CGSTCITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 689
The Chennai Bench of CESTAT held that aircraft and their parts manufactured by Taneja Aerospace qualify as “engineering goods” under Notification No. 10/1997-CE, making them eligible for excise duty exemption. The department had denied the exemption, arguing the goods were not “scientific or technical equipment,” but the tribunal relied on CBEC clarifications and past rulings favoring a broad interpretation of “equipment.”
The bench, comprising Vasa Sesha Giri Rao and Sulekha Beevi C.S, noted that the exemption was consistently allowed in later periods by the Commissioner (Appeals), and found no reason to deviate. The impugned order denying exemption was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and consequential relief was granted.
Small Form-Factor Pluggable Optical Transceivers Classifiable under CTI 8517 7090, Eligible for Exemption/Duty Concession: CESTAT [Read Order]
IBM India Private Limited vs Commissioner of Customs (Import)CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 583
The Mumbai Bench of CESTAT held that Small Form-Factor Pluggable (SFP) optical transceivers imported by IBM India are classifiable under CTI 8517 7090 and not under 8517 62 90 as claimed by the Revenue. The tribunal found the goods to be parts of optical transport equipment and not standalone devices, making them eligible for duty concession under Notification No. 57/2017-Customs, Sl. No. 5(a).
The bench, comprising S.K. Mohanty and M.M. Parthiban, rejected the customs department’s reassessment at 20% BCD and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order. It ruled that the transceivers meet the description for concessional 10% BCD and allowed the appeal, granting full relief to the appellant.
Low Aromatic White Spirit Not Classifiable under Light Oils and Preparations under Customs Tariff Act: CESTAT Sets Aside Confiscation [Read Order]
M/s Kunjal Synergies Private Limited vs Commissioner of Customs(Port)CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 664
The Kolkata Bench of CESTAT ruled that Low Aromatic White Spirit is not classifiable under CTH 27101239 as Light Oils and Preparations, but under the residuary heading 27101990. The tribunal found that the goods did not meet the criteria set by Note 4 of Chapter 27, nor did they conform to IS 1745:2018 standards for classification as “Solvent 145/205.”
The bench comprising P.K. Choudhary and K. Anpazhakan observed that misclassification based solely on Alert Circulars or broad interpretation of test results was unjustified. It held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in reclassifying the product and set aside the confiscation order, allowing the appeal in favor of the importer.
CESTAT Rules Assembling Imported TV Parts Qualifies as ‘’Manufacture”, Allows Concessional Duty [Read Order]
C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-I vs Bossh Technology India LimitedCITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 917
The Ahmedabad Bench of CESTAT ruled that assembling imported television parts into a functional unit qualifies as “manufacture” under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017. The tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)’s finding that Bossh Technology India imported parts individually not in a semi-knockdown condition and transformed them through a structured assembly process into a new product.
The bench, comprising Raju and Somesh Arora, dismissed the customs department’s appeal, rejecting the argument that the assembly did not produce a distinct item. It held that the detailed integration of components like display panels, circuit boards, and software upgrades resulted in a new, marketable television product, thereby justifying concessional duty under Notification No. 68/2017-Cus.
‘External Hard Disc Drives’ Classified as per Central Excise Tariff Act is Eligible for Benefit of Exemption from Customs Duty under Exemption Notification: CESTAT [Read Order]
Commissioner of Customs vs M/s. Neoteric Informatique LtdCITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 858
The Chennai Bench of CESTAT upheld that external hard disc drives, as classified under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, are eligible for customs duty exemption under the applicable notification. The tribunal dismissed the department's contention that such drives, due to their portability and additional components, should not be treated as standard hard disc drives.
The bench comprising Sulekha Beevi and Vasa Seshagiri affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order, holding that the classification and exemption claim made by the assessee was correct in law. The revenue’s appeal was dismissed, confirming the benefit of exemption for the imported external hard drives.
Classification of Yaravita Zintrac under Customs Tariff Act: CESTAT Grants Interim Relief to Yara Fertilizers India [Read Order]
Yara Fertilizers India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs(NS-V)CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 342
The Mumbai Bench of CESTAT granted interim relief to Yara Fertilizers India in a classification dispute over ‘Yaravita Zintrac’, a zinc oxide suspension concentrate. The tribunal observed that the product’s classification under Tariff Item 3105 9090 as "other fertilizers" was wrongly rejected by lower authorities, who had alternatively placed it under Tariff Items 3808 9340 as a "plant growth regulator" and 3824 9090 as undefined chemical products.
The bench comprising C.J. Mathew and Ajay Sharma held that the appellate authority had overstepped its jurisdiction by reclassifying the product. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the importer’s appeal for fresh consideration, clarifying that the dispute hinges on the appropriateness of classifying the product as a fertilizer under Chapter 31.
Connectors Used in PCBAs for Mobile Phones Classified under CTH 85177090, Exempted from BCD under Notification: CESTAT [Read Order]
M/s Flextronics Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissionerof CustomsCITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1017
The Chennai Bench of CESTAT ruled that connectors used in Printed Circuit Board Assemblies (PCBAs) for mobile phones are classifiable under CTH 85177090 and eligible for Basic Customs Duty (BCD) exemption under Sl. No. 6A of Notification No. 57/2017-Cus. The tribunal found the appellant’s alternative claim valid, as the goods qualified as inputs for PCBAs, despite earlier rejection of exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus.
The bench comprising P. Dinesha and Vasa Seshagiri Rao also took note of a prior favorable ruling accepted by the department for the same product and period. It held that the department’s denial lacked consistency and merit, and thus set aside the demand, allowing full exemption from BCD for the imported connectors.
“Boiled Supari” Cannot Be Classified under “Miscellaneous Edible Preparations” under Customs Tariff Act: Delhi HC Confirms CAAR Order [Read Order]
MS Shreedhra Agro LLP vs Commissioner of CustomsCITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 611
The Delhi High Court upheld the ruling of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), confirming that “Boiled Supari” is classifiable under Heading 080280 (areca nuts) and not under Chapter 21 as “Miscellaneous Edible Preparations” under Heading 21069030 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The court rejected the appellant’s reliance on a GST Council circular suggesting classification under Chapter 21 for GST purposes.
The bench comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that the CAAR rightly ignored the GST circular, as it lacked reasoning and did not override the Supreme Court’s interpretation under customs law. The court concluded there was no infirmity in CAAR’s decision and found no ground to interfere, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by MS Shreedhra Agro LLP.
LCD Panels Imported as Liquid Crystal Device Panels, Attract Nil Customs Duty: CESTAT Rules in Favour of Micromax Informatics [Read Order]
M/s Micromax Informatics Limited vs Commissioner of CustomsCITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 875
The Delhi Bench of CESTAT allowed Micromax Informatics to reclassify imported LCD panels under Customs Tariff Item 9013 80 10, ruling that such panels qualify as liquid crystal device panels and attract nil customs duty. The tribunal held that classification is a question of law and can be raised at the appellate stage, relying on Supreme Court precedents in Shri Rama Machinery and Diamond Cements.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta and C.J. Mathew observed that while the goods were originally self-assessed under CTI 8529 90 90, the alternate classification as liquid crystal devices was valid for proper adjudication. The tribunal thus permitted the appellant to amend grounds and ruled in favor of exemption, rejecting the department’s objection on procedural grounds.
Auto AC Parts Like Filters, Valves Must Be Classified Under Specific Tariff Heads, Not General ‘Parts of Air Conditioners’: CESTAT [Read Order]
M/s Motherson Bergstrom HVAC Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs PrincipalCommissioner of CustomsCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 754
The New Delhi Principal Bench of CESTAT ruled that automobile air conditioner components like filters, blowers, and valves must be classified under their individual specific tariff headings, not under the general heading CTI 8415 90 00 for "parts of air conditioners." The tribunal held that Note 2(a) to Section XVI of the Customs Tariff requires classification under specific headings if the parts are identifiable under Chapters 84 or 85, regardless of their use.
The bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta and P.V. Subba Rao set aside the Principal Commissioner's order, agreeing with the assessee’s view that classification under general “parts” was incorrect. The tribunal ruled that Note 2(b) could only apply when Note 2(a) is not relevant. As the goods were distinct and classifiable on their own, the demand for differential duty and interest was found to be unsustainable.
SIKA Block Joining Mortar to be Classified under Tariff Item 3214 90 90 of the Customs Tariff Act: AAR [Read Order]
SIKA India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of CustomsCITATION: AAR Kolkata, 2018
The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR), Kolkata, held that SIKA Block Joining Mortar is correctly classifiable under tariff item 3214 90 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The product, a cementitious polymer-modified mortar used for bonding AAC blocks and fly ash bricks, was found to align with the general characteristics of products listed under Heading 3214.
The AAR bench comprising Vishwanath and Partha Sarathi Dey observed that although the product is in powdered form, it becomes a paste on mixing with water and hardens after application, consistent with the Explanatory Notes to Heading 3214. Since it qualifies as a mastic or similar preparation, it cannot be classified under Heading 3824, which applies only to chemical products not elsewhere specified. Thus, the application of residuary classification under 3214 90 90 was upheld, rejecting the applicant’s earlier classification under 3824.
Relief to Ford India Pvt Ltd: CESTAT Rules Air Compressors for Car AC Equipment Rightly Classified Under Heading CTI 8414 of CTA, No Differential Duty Demand [Read Order]
M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of CustomsCITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 754
The Chennai Bench of CESTAT ruled in favour of Ford India Pvt. Ltd., holding that air compressors imported for car air conditioning equipment are rightly classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 8414 8011 as gas compressors used in air-conditioning systems. This classification, upheld under Note 2(a) to Section XVII of the Customs Tariff Act, excludes such goods from the general category of air conditioner parts, nullifying the differential duty demand of ₹2,07,850.
The two-member bench of M. Ajith Kumar (Technical Member) and P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) rejected the department’s classification under CTH 84159000, affirming that the compressors serve a core function and qualify independently under the specific heading for compressors. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the prior orders demanding duty were set aside.
Paddles as Part of Canoe Cannot be Classified Under Yachts and Others For Sports under CTA: CESTAT [Read Order] M/s Anjana International Industries vs The Pr. CommissionerCITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 507
The Delhi Bench of CESTAT ruled that paddles made of carbon fibre, used as part of canoes, cannot be classified under Chapter 89 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which covers yachts and other vessels for sports. Instead, the tribunal held that Chapter Heading 68151090, applicable to articles of carbon fibre, was the correct classification.
A two-member bench of Mr. Raju (Technical) and Mr. Ajay Sharma (Judicial) found that since paddles are “means of propulsion” and not covered under “sports requisites” under Chapter 95, and the goods are not wooden (which would have brought them under Chapter 44), they must be classified based on material composition. As the paddles were made of carbon fibre, the tribunal upheld their classification under 68151090, setting aside earlier classifications by Revenue under 8903 and 9506.
India Steel Industries vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION: 2017 TAXSCAN (HC) 915
The Bombay High Court ruled that “Stainless Steel Bright Bars of Austenitic Variety” cannot be classified as “Bright Steel Bars” under sub-serial No. 3606 of the Drawback Schedule. The Court held that these goods were rightly classifiable under sub-serial No. 3803 as “manufacture of metals not elsewhere specified”, which attracted a higher drawback rate.
A division bench of Justice A.S. Oka and Justice Riyaz I. Chagla noted that when two views are possible in tax matters, the one in favor of the assessee must be preferred. It found the Customs department’s reclassification incorrect and quashed the order demanding refund of drawback. The Court clarified that stainless steel cannot be presumed to be included in the generic “steel” category for drawback purposes and restored the assessee’s rightful classification.
Styrene-Butadiene Copolymer to Be Classified as ‘Polymers of Styrene’, Not Synthetic Rubber: CESTAT [Read Order]
KLJ Polymers & Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner of CustomsCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 767
The Ahmedabad Bench of CESTAT ruled that Styrene-Butadiene Copolymer (SBC) with over 70% styrene content is rightly classifiable under Chapter 3903 as “Polymers of Styrene”, and not under Chapter 4002 as “Synthetic Rubber”.
The Tribunal noted that the product retained thermoplastic properties, did not meet the tests for synthetic rubber, and the classification was supported by HSN Explanatory Notes. It rejected the customs department’s demand for differential duty, interest, and penalties, and also held that the extended limitation period was not invocable as all facts were disclosed. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Quick Lime properly classifiable under HS Code 25221000: CESTAT grants relief to Jindal Stainless Ltd [Read Order]
Jindal Stainless Ltd. vs Commissioner of CustomsCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 195
The Hyderabad CESTAT ruled that “Quick Lime” imported by Jindal Stainless Ltd. is correctly classifiable under CTI 25221000 and not under 28259090. The tribunal held that Quick Lime with over 90% calcium oxide content, obtained by calcining limestone, falls squarely under the heading for quicklime, not metallic oxides.
The bench rejected the department’s claim that calcination disqualified it from Chapter 25, finding no basis to apply alternate classification rules. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the demand for differential duty.
Ethyl Benzene Qualifies as Xylene Isomer: CESTAT Upholds Berger Paints' Classification under CTH 29024400 [Read Order]
M/s. Berger Paints India Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs (Port)CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 378
The Kolkata CESTAT ruled in favor of Berger Paints and others, holding that Ethyl Benzene qualifies as a Xylene isomer due to its identical molecular formula (C₈H₁₀) and should be included in determining composition under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 29024400. This overturned Customs' reclassification of the goods under CTH 27073000, which was based on the exclusion of Ethyl Benzene from the 95% isomer threshold required under HSN Explanatory Notes.
The tribunal emphasized consistent classification practices across the industry and noted that the reclassification lacked legal merit. It upheld the appellants’ original classification as legally correct, quashed the demand for differential duty and penalties, and affirmed that the issue was interpretational, not misdeclaration.
Light Green Float Glass (Tinted Non-Wired Type) to be Classified under Tinted Glass: Madras HC [Read Order] M/s. Asahi India Glass Ltd vs Commissioner of CustomsCITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1921
The Madras High Court held that "Light Green Float Glass (Tinted Non-Wired Type)" imported by Asahi India Glass Ltd. must be classified under CTH 70051010, as per consistent past practice and absence of misdeclaration. The Court found that the Customs Department's attempt to reclassify the goods under CTH 70052110 was unjustified, particularly when appellate authorities had previously upheld the original classification.
While quashing the ₹11 crore show cause notice, the Court emphasized that no fraud or suppression existed. However, it declined to issue a declaratory ruling on the classification, noting such an evaluation requires a detailed factual inquiry beyond writ jurisdiction. The department was directed to clear the goods under the original heading, subject to description match.
Base Oil SN50 Can’t Be Classified as High-Speed Diesel: CESTAT [Read Order]
RAJKAMAL INDUSTRIAL PVT LTD vs C.C.-KANDLA CITATION: 2021 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 177
The Ahmedabad CESTAT ruled in favor of Rajkamal Industrial Pvt Ltd, holding that imported Base Oil SN50 cannot be classified as High-Speed Diesel (HSD) under CTH 27101930. The tribunal found that the customs department failed to prove the oil’s use as an automotive fuel, a necessary condition for HSD classification, and restored the appellant’s original classification under CTH 27101960.
The tribunal also set aside the confiscation, ₹3.5 crore fine, and penalties imposed on the company and its directors. Although the appellant won the classification dispute, the tribunal permitted re-export of the goods as requested.
Nimbooz Classified as Fruit Juice-Based Drink, Not Lemonade: No GST Payable, Rules CESTAT [Read Order]
Varun Beverages Limited vs Commissioner, Central ExciseCITATION: 2021 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 123
The Allahabad CESTAT ruled in favor of Varun Beverages Ltd., holding that ‘Nimbooz by 7 UP’ and similar beverages are classifiable under tariff item 22029020 as fruit juice-based drinks, not as lemonade under 22021020. Consequently, no excise duty or GST is payable under the disputed classification.
Relying on a previous Larger Bench decision, the tribunal upheld the appellant’s classification and rejected the revenue's claim. The bench allowed consequential relief to the appellant in accordance with the law.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates