Image
Case Details: Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Mangalore vs. Pure Chemical Ltd. (2026) 38 Centax 313 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Aravind Kumar & N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
- S/Shri Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, S. Dwarakanath, A.S.G., Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv., Ms Rajeshwari Shankar, Navanjay Mahapatra, Advs., for the Appellant.
- S/Shri K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR, Vishnu Sharma A S, Ms Shilpa Balani, Yasharth Misra, Ms Namrata Saraogi, Ms Neha Chaudhary, Advs., M. P. Devanath, AOR, M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR, Mrs Vanita Bhargava, Ajay Bhargava, Ms Nandini Chauhan, Milind Sharma, Ms. Tijil Thakur, Advs., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
Proceedings arose in relation to the classification of imported goods described as Exxol Hexane RD, which were intended for use as a solvent in pharmaceuticals, bulk drugs, oilseed extractions, and the polymers and plastics industries. The adjudicating authority, relying upon test reports of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and the Indian Institute of Petroleum, held that the goods were covered under the category of special boiling point spirit having a nominal boiling point range of 63–70°C and were therefore classifiable under Chapter 27 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which required an import licence or canalization. Reference was also made to D.G.F.T. Policy Circular, dated 14-7-2004, which clarified that Exxol Hexane RD was covered under Chapter 29 of the ITC-HS classification of export-import items 2002-2007. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), in the impugned order, held that the said policy circular was binding on all authorities, including customs authorities and therefore the imported goods were classifiable under Chapter 29. Appeals were thereafter filed with the Supreme Court challenging the CESTAT order. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appeals had been filed against the order passed by CESTAT wherein the goods had been held to be classifiable under Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under Chapter 27. The court noted that the tax demand involved in the matter was below the monetary threshold prescribed for filing appeals. It was observed that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17-9-2024 prescribed the monetary limit governing the maintainability of such appeals. In view of the said monetary limit, the court held that the appeals were liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Unimers India Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2010 (250) E.L.T. 225 (Tri. – Bang.) — Appeal dismissed on monetary limit [Para 1]
- Commissioner v. Indian Petrochemical Corporation Ltd. — 2011 (274) E.L.T. 299 (Tri. – Ahmd.) — Appeal dismissed on monetary limit [Para 1]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.D.T. Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17-9-2024 [Para 1]
