SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJIC.M.A.(MD).Nos.961 and 1204 of 2023&C.M.P.(MD).No.13484 & 15952 of 2023C.M.A.(MD).No.961 of 2023The Commissioner of CustomsCustoms House,New Harbour EstateTuticorin-628 004 .. Appellant

by ·

For Appellant in both cases : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, Standing Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.Vijaya Narayan, Senior counsel
for
Mr.T.Balakrishnan
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J., and P.B.BALAJI,J.)
The interesting question that falls for consideration before us in
the above appeal is whether ‘Menthol Scented Supari’ proposed to be imported by the Respondent would fall under Chapter 21 as a product of betel nut known as ‘Supari’ or under Chapter 8 as just ‘areca nut’.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 15.12.2023 Delivered on : 28.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.961 and 1204 of 2023
&
C.M.P.(MD).No.13484 & 15952 of 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.961 of 2023
The Commissioner of Customs
Customs House,
New Harbour Estate
Tuticorin-628 004 .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s. AK Impex
No.44, Cross road
New Washermanpet
Chennai-600 081
Tamilnadu .. Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 130(1) of the
Customs Act, 1962 praying to set aside the order passed by the Customs,
Authority for Advance Rulings vide Ruling No’s.
CAAR/Mum/ARC/8,9,10 & 11/2023 dated 24.02.2023.
C.M.A.(MD)No.1204 of 2023
The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Customs House,
New Harbour Estate
Tuticorin-628 004 .. Appellant
Vs. M/s.Gani Granites Pvt Ltd
No.19, C-18, Uthamar Gandhi Salai
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai-600 034 .. Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 130(1) of the
Customs Act, 1962 praying to set aside the order passed by the Customs, Authority for Advance Ruling in CAAR/Mum/ARC/43/2023 dated
23.05.2023.
For Appellant in both cases : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, Standing Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.Vijaya Narayan, Senior counsel
for
Mr.T.Balakrishnan
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J., and P.B.BALAJI,J.)
The interesting question that falls for consideration before us in
the above appeal is whether ‘Menthol Scented Supari’ proposed to be imported by the Respondent would fall under Chapter 21 as a product of betel nut known as ‘Supari’ or under Chapter 8 as just ‘areca nut’.

  1. The Revenue, aggrieved by the advance ruling of the Customs
    Authority under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962, classifying
    ‘Menthol Scented Supari’ was required to be classified under Customs
    Tariff Heading (CTH) 21069030, has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
  2. A brief prelude leading up to the present appeal:
    The respondents proposed to import ‘Menthol Scented Supari’
    from its suppliers in Burma, Sri Lanka and Thailand. An application was filed under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking an advance ruling regarding the classification of the product proposed to be imported. The Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR), in and by its Ruling dated 24.02.2023 held that the product would have to be classified under Chapter 21 of the Customs Act, 1962. At this juncture, it would also be relevant to note that none of the Customs authorities who were put on notice chose to appear before the CAAR and oppose the advance ruling application filed by the respondents.
  3. We have heard Mr. N.Dilip Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel for
    Customs, CGST & Excise for the Appellant Department and Senior Counsel, Mr.Vijay Narayan, for Mr.T.Balakrishnan, Counsel for the respondents. We have paid our anxious and careful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on either side, apart from also perusing the material records, including the impugned advance ruling of CAAR. We have also kept in mind the various principles laid down by the Courts that have been brought to our notice by the Counsel on either side, by referring to several judicial pronouncements. We have also taken note of the written submissions that have been filed by both the Counsel for the Appellant as well as the respondents.
  4. Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant would develop his arguments, challenging the advance ruling, by first and foremost contending that the CAAR ought not to have entertained the application for an advance ruling as there was a statutory prohibition under Clause (B) of sub-section (2) of Section 28-I of the Customs Act, 1962 when the subject matter of the advance ruling had already been decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court. In this regard, he would place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Crane Betel Nut Powder vs.
    Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, reported in (2007) 210 ELT 171 SC. The Apex Court, in this judgment has held that even when betel nut is cut into smaller pieces, adopting a process of adding essential or non-essential oils, menthol, sweetening agent etc., the same would not result in a new or distinct product, having any different character and resultantly, the classification would have to be only under Chapter 8 and not Chapter 21.
  5. Apart from heavily relying on the above decision of the Apex Court, the learned Counsel for the Appellant would also refer to the decisions of the CESTAT Tribunal in ST Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Customs, reported in (2021) 378 ELT 514 (Tri-Mad), Azam Laminators v. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in (2019) 367 ELT A22 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. ARS Company, reported in (2006) 206 ELT 1027 (Tr), where also it has been held that areca nuts, cut into pieces and thereafter treated it with oils, sugar etc. would not entitle a classification to be made under Chapter 8, but only under Chapter 21.
  6. The Learned Counsel for the appellant would further state that thedecision of the Tribunal in ARS and Company was also subsequently upheld by the Apex Court in the decision reported in (2015) 324 ELT 619. The decision of the Apex Court in Ayush Business Overseas v. Commissioner, reported in (2021) 378 ELT A142 is also relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. In the said decision, the Apex Court had ruled in favour of the revenue by holding that the classification of areca nuts would have to be under Chapter 8.
  7. The next submission of the Learned Counsel for the appellant is that Chapter 21 is a residuary chapter dealing with miscellaneous edible preparations and it is also provided under a separate heading, ‘Supplementary Note 2’ under the said Chapter, covered under the subheading ‘Betel nut product known as Supari’. It would mean any preparation containing betel nuts and therefore, areca nuts, whether or not flavoured with menthol, would have to be necessarily classified only under Chapter 8 and the learned counsel would contend that in order to qualify for being classified under Chapter 21, the imported product should be a preparation containing betel nuts and it should not have lost the character of areca nut.
  8. The learned counsel for the appellant would therefore primarilyfocus on the point that ‘Menthol Scented Supari’ contains the flavour of menthol and does not amount to a food preparation as mentioned in Note 2 to Chapter 21 and when areca nut is edible by itself and even if it is cut, boiled, sweetened, it would not change the character of the betel nut and the process of sweetening it would not amount to manufacture, in order to have it classified under Chapter 21. On the other hand, even if the betel nut is boiled and undergoes moderate heat treatment and also by adding of glucose syrup, oils etc., it would not be a reason to take it out of the purview of Chapter 8.
  9. The learned counsel for the appellant would also invite our specific attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Crane Betel Nut Powder Works v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 155 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held, rejecting the contention of the Department, that the process of cutting betel nuts into smaller pieces and adding oils, whether essential or non-essential would not result in a new and distinct product, having a different character and use and that the end product retained its original character.
  10. The learned counsel for the appellant would also challenge the findings of the CAAR that insertion of Chapter Note 6 by Finance Act (No.2), 2009 dated 19.09.2009 would render ineffective, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crane Betel Nut Powder Work’s case referred hereinabove was without any legal basis. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no similar note like Note 6 under the Customs Tariff Act and when the words employed in the Customs Tariff Act and Central Excise Tariff Act are very similar and the same argument was placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under the Central Excise Tariff Act in Crane Betel Nut’s case referred herein supra, the issue has to be taken as decided by the Apex Court and the subsequent insertion of Note 6 to Chapter 21 would be of no consequence at all. He would further contend that even if there have been any amendments or GST circulars classifying the impugned products under Chapter 21, it would be of no avail as any amendments made in Central Excise Tariff cannot be read into the Customs Tariff Act, which was an entirely different tariff code altogether.
  11. The next submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant isthat the HSN Notes of Chapter 8 also clarified that fruits, nuts etc. generally intended for human consumption, whether fresh, chilled, boiled, frozen, cooked or steamed and containing sweetened matter, would not alter its classification, just because sugar has been added to it.
  12. In so far as not contesting the matter before the CAAR, before the advance ruling came to be issued, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant would place reliance on UO Note dated 14.12.2023 and contend that the Department has never received any intimation calling for comments from the Advance Ruling Authority.
  13. Finally, he would place reliance on the following decisions:
    i) Great Nuts Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, reported in (2023) SCC Online Del 1240, where the Division Bench of the Delhi High
    Court held that in order to be eligible for being classified under Chapter
    21, there would have to be, necessarily, a preparation containing betel nuts and in the absence of such a preparation, the product would have to be classified only under Chapter 8.
    ii) Shreedhra Agro LLP reported in (2022) 382 ELT 416 (AAR) which was also confirmed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in CUSAA.130 of 2022, holding that the process of scenting or flavouring betel nut would not render it a preparation of betel nuts, resulting in classification being made under Chapter 21. He would also refer to the discussion of the Advance Ruling Authority in the said case about the effect of GST circulars classifying it under Chapter 21 and holding that it would not bind the Customs Authority, who would be at liberty, to still classify it under Chapter 8.
    iii) M/s.Global Impex v. Commissioner of Customs in Final Order No.51407 – 51408 of 2023 dated 09.10.2023, where the Tribunal held that the imported scented goods, viz., scented sweet suprai was neither a product of betel nut nor a preparation of betel nut, but only betel nuts cut into pieces and would be classifiable only under Chapter 8, being excluded from Chapter 21.
  14. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Vijay Narayan would
    argue to sustain the impugned Advance Ruling favour of the Respondent, contending that Clause B of sub-section 2 of Section 28-I of Customs Act and the embargo of earlier rulings on the same subject matter would not arise in the instant case and the CAAR has rightly distinguished the several judgments, including the Apex Court ruling in Crane Betel Nut’s case referred herein supra in view of the amendment to Chapter 21, of the Central Excise Act and the GST Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 21, read with CBIC Circular No.163/19/2021-GT dated 6.10.2021.
  15. The learned senior counsel, Mr.Vijay Narayan would also state that there has been a fundamental shift in the tax regime in view of Central Excise being replaced by Goods and Service Tax (GST), totally effacing the concept of manufacture in the area of tax and the product, ‘Menthol Scented Supari’ also no longer coming under the purview of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, no duty is chargeable under the Act.
  16. The learned senior counsel would also contend that the reference to the HSN Explanatory Note to Chapter 8 was wholly misplaced as Rule (1) of the General Rule for Interpretation of Import Tariff makes it abundantly clear that for all legal purposes, classifications shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any related Section or Chapter Notes. Therefore, the Senior counsel would primarily contend that when the subject product was specifically defined under Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 21 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the classification can only be under Chapter 21 and the reliance placed on HSN by the Appellant was totally unconnected and unwarranted as it was only relatable to Chapter 8 alone. The learned Senior counsel would further contend that the decision of the Apex Court in Crane Betel Nut Work’s case as well as the decision of the Delhi High Court in Great Nuts Impex Pvt. Ltd., lost its precedential value because of a subsequent new scenario that has emerged, post the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 dated 9th August 2009 and also in view of the concept of ‘manufacture’ itself being of no consequence in the wake of the introduction of GST in 2017.
  17. The learned Senior counsel would place reliance on the decision of this Court in The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s.Shahnaz Commodities International P. Ltd. and 2 others, rendered in CMA
    Nos.600, 1206 and 1750 of 2023, where a Division Bench of this Court, in and by a Common Judgment dated 01.08.2023, held that when there is a specific clause under Chapter 20, the classification cannot be made under Chapter 8.
  18. At the outset, before we proceed to decide the moot point as to the correct classification of ‘Menthol Scented Supari’, we may refer to some of the relevant statutory provisions and supplementary notes.
  19. Chapter 08 (02) deal with ‘other nuts, fresh or dried, whether or not shelled or peeled.’
    Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 8 reads thus:
    “3. Dried fruit or dried nuts of this Chapter may be partially rehydrated, or treated for the following purposes:
    (a) For additional preservation or stabilization (for example, by moderate heat treatment, sulphuring, or the addition of sorbic acid or potassium sorbate); (b) To improve or maintain their appearance (for example, by the addition of vegetable oil or small quantities of glucose syrup), provided that they retain the character of dried fruit or dried nuts.”
    Chapter 21 (06) deals with ‘Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included’. The Supplementary Note 2 in Chapter 21 runs thus:
    ‘2. In this Chapter “betel nut product known as Supari” means any preparation containing betel nuts, but not containing any one or more of the following ingredients, namely, lime, katha (catechu), and tobacco whether or not containing any other ingredients, such as cardamom, copra or menthol.”
    Rule 3 of General Rules for Interpretation of Import Tariff runs thus:
    “When by application of Rule2(b) or for any other reason, goods are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows:
    a. The heading which provides the most specific descriptions shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in a set up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them give a more complete or precise description of the goods.
    b. Mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to (a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, in so far as this criterion is applicable.
    c. When goods cannot be classified by reference to (a) or (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration.”
  20. The crucial aspect that needs to be addressed is whether “the product in question”, viz., “Menthol Scented Supari” can be classified under Chapter 8 or not or whether it has to be classified under Chapter 21.
    22 (a). We have noticed that under Chapter 8, betel nut can be whole, split, ground or other. The HSN Explanatory Notes clarifies that fruit and nut in Chapter 8 may be whole, sliced, chopped, shredded, stoned, pulped, graded, peeled or shelled and further addition of small quantities of sugar does not affect the classification of fruit in this Chapter.
    22 (b). It is the specific contention of the Counsel for the Appellant that in view of the betel nut being merely cut into smaller pieces and it is sweetened, it remains a betel nut only and would therefore squarely come under the purview of Chapter 8. The further contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that Chapter 21 is only residuary in character and when Chapter 8 applies to the product in question, the Advance Ruling
    Authority cannot fall back on Chapter 21 and classify the product under Chapter 21.
    22(c). However, we have seen that Supplementary Note 2 specifically deals with ‘Supari’ and states that it is any preparation containing betel nuts, but not containing lime, katha (catechu) and tobacco, whether or not containing cardamom, copra or menthol. In our view, the said Supplementary Note 2 placed under Chapter 21 would certainly cover the product in question, viz., ‘Menthol Scented Supari’. Its is not the case of the Appellant that the product in question contains lime, katha (catechu) or tobacco. Only if any of these 3 ingredients are used, then the betel nut product known as ‘Supari’ would fall outside the purview of Chapter 21.
    22 (d). Thus, reading Chapter 21 as a whole, harmoniously with Supplementary Note 2, it is evident that the legislature has specifically carved out an entry for “Menthol Scented Supari” which contains betel nut pieces, menthol added to it and does not include any of the 3 items viz., lime, katha (catechu) or tobacco.
  21. Applying the General Rules for Interpretation of Import Tariffwhich we have already extracted hereinabove, when there is a specific entry for ‘Menthol Scented Supari’ found under Chapter 21,
    Supplementary Note 2, the same would prevail over the general description of the nut under Chapter 8.
  22. By a specific entry, when ‘Supari’ is added under supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 21, we deem it that it is for a specific purpose of dealing with the said product ‘Supari’ under Chapter 21 alone. Giving any other interpretation to the inclusion of ‘Supari’ under Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 21 would defeat the object and purpose of its inclusion under Chapter 21 specifically. The Learned Counsel for the appellant was also not able to justify its specific inclusion under Chapter 21 by way of a supplementary note, for any other purpose.
  23. The learned counsel’s argument regarding HSN (Harmonised System of Nomenclature) Notes of Chapter 8 and its applicability to the product on hand, also cannot be countenanced because, merely by mentioning that addition of sugar in small quantities of sugar, would not affect the classification of the fruit, we cannot hold that the product would fall under Chapter 8 and not 21. We find at the outset, in the HSN under Chapter 8, set out as general guidelines, when dealing with addition of sugar in small quantities, consciously nuts have been excluded and reference is made only to fruits. Therefore, this is yet another pointer that the Legislature was very clear in bringing ‘Supari’, a betel nut product, only under Chapter 21 and not Chapter 8 as contended by the counsel for the appellant. The issue is also clinched from the fact that in Chapter 21, under the heading “Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included” also, under Tariff Item 21, 06, 90 and 30, Betel nut product known as ‘Supari’ finds a specific entry/inclusion, fixing a rate of duty @ 150% per kilogram.
    26 (a). All these apart, we also notice that the process involved and referred to in Chapter 8 as seen from Note 3 is relating to treating the dried nuts for preservation, stabilization and to improve or maintain the appearance and in such cases, even if the process involved moderate heat treatment, sulphuring or adding sorbic acid or potassium sorbate or vegetable oil or small quantity of glucose syrup, as long as the product retains the character of a dried nut or fruit, it would be classified under Chapter 8.
    26(b). However, under Chapter 21 what is contemplated is a preparation containing betel nuts and not containing lime, katha (catechu) or tobacco, whether or not it contains ingredients like cardamom, copra or menthol.
    26(c). Thus, there is a fundamental distinction even in the object and purport of both the Chapters. Therefore, applying the General Rules of Interpretation for Import Tariff, there is no difficulty in holding that there being a specific entry for the product in question, viz. “Menthol Scented Supari” under Chapter 21, applying the rules of interpretation, the classification of the said product has to be only under Chapter 21 and not Chapter 8.
  24. The CAAR has also specifically referred to the fact that comments were invited from the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner / Commissioner of Customs and that comments were received from the jurisdictional authority, Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mundra which has also been referred to and discussed. It has also specifically recorded that no one represented the department/jurisdictional Commissionerates. In the light of this specific reference in the impugned order, we are unable to, prima facie, accept the unilateral and self serving version of the Assistant Commissioner by way of UO Note dated 14.12.2023, that the Department was not invited to comment and the Mundra Commissionerate was not authorized to reply. Even otherwise, in view of the foregoing discussions, touching upon all the objections of the Department, we do not wish to pass any adverse comments with regard to the absence of the Authorities at the time of the hearing, before the Advance Ruling came to be made.
    28 (a). This Court in The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s.Shahnaz Commodities International P. Ltd. and 2 others, has elaborately discussed the classification of roasted betel/areca nut and held that it would only be under Chapter 20 and not Chapter 8. This Court further held that the Common Parlance Test would be irrelevant in determining classification, when there is a specific entry covering a product.
    28(b). We are in agreement with the ratio laid down by the Division bench of this Court in the said case. In the case on hand before us, instead of Chapter 20, Chapter 21 would apply since Supplementary Note 2 under Chapter 21 specifically provides for ‘supari’ and would therefore prevail over the general entry for ‘nuts’ in Chapter 8.
    28(c). Consequently, the argument advanced by the Counsel for the Appellant that, to qualify for classification under Chapter 21, the product should have undergone a process by which it lost its original character of a betel nut or areca nut does not merit acceptance.
  25. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crane Betel Nut Powder Work’s case referred herein supra, the issue was relating to whether crushing of betel nut and adding ingredients to it would involve any ‘manufacture’ or not and in that context it was held that the process of boiling, slicing etc. and adding flavours to the betel nut would not result in altering the nature and characteristics of the product and therefore the classification would have to be made under Chapter 8.
  26. According to the learned Senior counsel for the respondents, post this judgment, two important subsequent factors have intervened.
  27. Firstly, vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 dated 19th August, 2009,there has been an insertion of Note 6 in Chapter 21, which specifically relates to Tariff Item 2106 90 30 relating to ‘supari’ and stating that the process of adding or mixing cardamom, copra, menthol, spices, sweetening agents or any such ingredients other than lime, katha (catechu) or tobacco to betel nut, in any form, shall not amount to “manufacture”. However, we are conscious of the fact that this amendment was only under the Central Excise Tariff Act and not the Customs Tariff Act.
  28. Secondly, w.e.f. 1.7.2017, the GST Act was introduced and the concept of taxation itself has undergone a change from ‘manufacture’ to ‘supply’. The Supplementary Note 2 in Chapter 21 of CGST Tariff is also verbatim the same as Supplementary Note 2 under Chapter 21 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. This only exemplifies the intention of the legislature to have always treated ‘supari’ as a special entry and not as a betel nut under the general entry of ‘nuts’.
  29. Though we find force in the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Customs Tariff Act still continues to employ the same phraseology that was available under the unamended Central Excise Tariff Act and that too when the Apex Court had dealt with the same issue, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Crane Betel Nut Powder Work’s case would still hold the field and apply to the case on hand, we are unable to accept the said limb of argument, in view of our categorical finding that there being a specific entry for ‘Supari’ under Chapter 21 and it would take precedence over the general entry under Chapter 8, the question of applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court would not even arise for the simple reason that the issue on hand is only revolving around classification of ‘Supari’ under Chapter 8 or Chapter 21 and the facts of the case before the Apex Court was entirely different and the issue was whether process involved in manufacture of sweetened betel nut pieces would result in a totally new product or not.
    34 (a). It is also to be borne in mind that both the statutory enactments viz., Central Excise Tariff Act and the Customs Tariff Act operate in different spheres. In so far as the Central Excise Tariff Act, it deals with goods that are manufactured inside the Country and the tariffs applicable to various categories and products. In that context, process or manufacture involved assumes significance.
    34 (b). However, under the Customs Tariff Act, the products are imported from foreign countries and therefore the significance attached to the concept of manufacture does not carry the same weightage as it does under the Central Excise Tariff Act.
    34 (c). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crane Betel Nut Powder
    Work’s case was dealing with an issue that arose only under the Central Excise Tariff Act and not the Customs Tariff Act. The amendments also have been incorporated only under the Central Excise Tariff Act, clarifying that the process of adding or mixing cardamom, copra, menthol etc. would not amount to manufacture etc.,
    34 (d). As already discussed herein above, under the Customs Tariff Act, the question of manufacture loses its relevance since the Act deals only with the tariff applicable to the goods or products imported from outside the country, in an as is where is basis, or rather the product as imported in whatever form is the basis for levy of Customs Tariff. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crane Betel Nut Powder
    Work’s case cannot be said to be a bar U/s. 28(i) of the Customs Act.
    35 (a). Here we have already found that by inserting a specific tariff entry for ‘Supari’ under Chapter 21, the question of classifying it under Chapter 8 does not even arise, especially when this was neither the issue before the Apex Court nor the basis on which the decision was rendered. It is also trite law that a decision is only an authority for what is decided and it cannot be extended to something which has not been decided by applying the process of a logical deduction.
    35 (b). In fact, in P.Rajendran Vs. The Assistant Director, in
    Crl.O.P. No.19880 of 2022 dated 14.09.2022, the Division Bench of this
    Court, in fact, one of us being a part of the Bench (Justice. RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN) held that “a case is only an authority for what it decides”. As observed by Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem, reported in 1901 AC
    495, quoted hereunder for easy reference:
    “… that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but are governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an
    authority for what it actually decides.”
    35 (c). In Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. & others, reported in (2007)
    7 SCC 328, also the Apex Court approved the said position, by citing the above passage as well. Thus viewed from these angles also, the ratio laid by the Apex Court in Crane Betel Nut Powder Work’s case cannot be enlarged and read into the facts of the present case, under the guise of logical reasoning.
  30. The findings of the CAAR are just and proper, applying the legal position in a proper perspective. The same does not warrant interference in appeal. We do not find any irregularity in the Advance Ruling issued by the Authority and the same is not hit by Clause B of sub-section 2 of Section 28-I of the Customs Act, 1962 as not being covered by earlier rulings on the same subject matter, by the Appellate Tribunal or Court. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
    Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.
    (T.K.R.J.) & (P.B.B.J)
    28.03.2024
    Internet : Yes
    Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No kpr
    To
    The Commissioner of Customs
    Customs House,
    New Harbour Estate
    Tuticorin-628 004 
    RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J., and
    P.B.BALAJI,J
    kpr
    Pre-delivery judgment in
    C.M.A.(MD).Nos.961 and 1204 of 2023
    28.03.2024

You may also like...