Case Details: Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Pune-I vs. Pravin Masalewale (2025) 34 Centax 349 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
- S/Shri V.C. Bharathi, Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Udit Dediya, Siddharth Praveen Acharya, Advocates & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Petitioner
- S/Shri Prakash Shah, Sr. Advocate, Akshit Pradhan, Mihir Mehta, Mohit Raval, Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Prabhat Chaurasia, Anirudh Jamwal, Advocates for M/s. MPS Legal, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, engaged in the manufacture of a product described as ‘Spice Mix’, classified the same under Tariff Item 0910 91 00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as ‘spices’. The Department disputed this classification and proposed to classify the product under Chapter 2103 of the said Tariff. The assessee contended that the ‘Spice Mix’ merely substituted various individual spices and flavouring substances that would have been added separately during the preparation of a recipe, and that it only imparted flavour and aroma to the food under preparation. The CESTAT accepted the assessee’s contention and held the product classifiable under Tariff Item 0910 91 00 as ‘spices’. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the product ‘Spice Mix’ was only a product adding flavour and aroma to a recipe under preparation and, therefore, classifiable under Tariff Item 0910 91 00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as ‘spices’, and not under Chapter 2103. The Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the CESTAT and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Commissioner v. Pravin Masalewale — (2025) 34 Centax 348 (Tri.-Bom.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
