9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 684 - AT - Central ExciseReclassification of Goods Demanded Revenue relied upon the Test report Held that - The report is not definite as the opinion of the Chief Chemist it appears that after demineralization the some minerals have been added - The report of Dy. Chief Chemist only opined that it appears that some minerals have been added - the report is not definite on the issue Thus, there was no infirmity the order Decided against Revenue.
Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act
Analysis: The appeal filed by the Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification of goods manufactured by the respondents. The respondents market the goods as Bailley Aqua Water under sub-heading 2201.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, claiming it as treated water. However, a show cause notice was issued by re-classifying the goods as natural mineral water under heading 22.01 of the Act. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings, leading the Revenue to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was subsequently dismissed. The Revenue argues that the goods should be classified as mineral water based on the test report of the Deputy Chief Chemist, indicating the addition of minerals to the treated water. On the other hand, the respondents contest this claim, stating that the Deputy Chief Chemist's report is inconclusive. They argue that the report only assumes the addition of minerals after demineralization, making the demand for re-classification unsustainable. Upon reviewing the test report dated 21.5.1998 of the Deputy Chief Chemist, the Tribunal finds the report to be inconclusive and lacking definitiveness. The report merely suggests that minerals may have been added after demineralization, without providing a clear conclusion. The Tribunal emphasizes the need for a definite report on such a crucial issue. As the report fails to provide a clear opinion, the Tribunal upholds the impugned order, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue. Additionally, the cross objection is also disposed of in light of this decision.
|
