Wheat Gluten Covered under Wheat Flour and Eligible for DFIA Benefits for Biscuit Production: Madras HC [Read Order]
Madras HC quashes Customs orders, holding wheat gluten imports eligible for DFIA for biscuit production under CESTAT’s wheat flour classification.
![Wheat Gluten Covered under Wheat Flour and Eligible for DFIA Benefits for Biscuit Production: Madras HC [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/11/16/2105726-wheat-gluten-wheat-flour-dfia-biscuit-production-madras-hc-taxscan.webp "Wheat Gluten Covered under Wheat Flour and Eligible for DFIA Benefits for Biscuit Production: Madras HC [Read Order]")
The Madras High Court quashed the Orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs denying Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) benefits for wheat gluten imports, holding that wheat gluten is covered under the description of wheat flour and is eligible for import under DFIA for biscuit production.
The petitioners stated that they had imported wheat gluten under a DFIA dated 14.08.2012 issued for the export of biscuits and claimed exemption under the notification dated 11.09.2009.
The imported goods were assessed and cleared without payment of duty after debiting the DFIA produced by the petitioner.
The respondent initiated proceedings alleging that the petitioner was not entitled to import wheat gluten against a DFIA issued for biscuits, issued show cause notices, and claimed that the goods were liable to confiscation with duty, interest, and penalty.
The petitioner contended that wheat gluten is wheat flour with specific technical characteristics and relied on prior CESTAT decisions, including Uni Colloids Impex Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (2014) and Unibourne Food Ingredients LLP vs. Commissioner of Customs 2022 which consistently held that wheat gluten is covered under wheat flour and eligible for DFIA benefits for biscuit production.
The respondent argued that sufficient opportunity had been provided, that wheat gluten was not covered under the DFIA licence, and was not eligible for DFIA benefits.
After considering the submissions and relevant precedents, including Apex Court rulings in C.K. Gangadharan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) and Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. (1991), Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, presiding over the bench, held that the impugned orders suffered from lack of jurisdiction as the respondent was bound by the prior CESTAT decisions.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs and allowed all the writ petitions. No costs were imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
The petitioner was represented by Hari Radhakrishnan, while Rajnish Pathiyil appeared for the Revenue.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
