Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Eastern Aromatics P. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Eastern Aromatics P. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 20, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26744

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/26744
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Nov 20, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

Eastern Aromatics P. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(145)ELT690Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. in the order impugned in the appeal, the commissioner (appeals) has accepted the claim made by the manufacturer for classification of geraniol, and two other chemicals under chapter 29, rejecting the department's claim for their classification under chapter 33.2. the department's appeal against this order refers specifically to geraniol. the ground in the appeal does not mention the other two substances, although it says that "the products" are odoriferous organic substances and hence classifiable under chapter 33. the ground also does not advance any material in support of the claim for classification of the substances other than geraniol.3. as far as geraniol is concerned, the chemical examiner's report does not specifically call it an odoriferous substance. even if it were the one, it is debatable whether it is classifiable under chapter 33.01, which applies to mixtures of odoriferous substance, or mixtures with a base of such odoriferous substance. the goods are despatched as geraniol, suggesting that they are not mixtures. we therefore find no ground for staying the operation of the commissioner (appeals)' order and dismiss the application.

Full Judgment

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the claim made by the manufacturer for classification of geraniol, and two other chemicals under Chapter 29, rejecting the department's claim for their classification under Chapter 33.

2. The department's appeal against this order refers specifically to geraniol. The ground in the appeal does not mention the other two substances, although it says that "the products" are odoriferous organic substances and hence classifiable under Chapter 33. The ground also does not advance any material in support of the claim for classification of the substances other than geraniol.

3. As far as geraniol is concerned, the Chemical Examiner's report does not specifically call it an odoriferous substance. Even if it were the one, it is debatable whether it is classifiable under chapter 33.01, which applies to mixtures of odoriferous substance, or mixtures with a base of such odoriferous substance. The goods are despatched as geraniol, suggesting that they are not mixtures. We therefore find no ground for staying the operation of the Commissioner (Appeals)' order and dismiss the application.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, vs Eastern Aromatics P. Ltd. Same Subject Excise