M/S.Renganathan And Sons vs. Additional Commissioner

Facts

The appellant, M/s. Renganathan & Sons, represented by its Managing Partner, challenged an order dated 24.10.2024 passed in W.P.(MD)No.13023 of 2020. The appellant sought to reclassify its unmanufactured tobacco products under heading 2401 20 90 of the Customs Tariff. The writ appeal was filed against the order of the learned Single Judge. The respondent is the Additional Commissioner, O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The appellant sought a declaration that their products, based on their nature and processing, should fall under the specified Customs Tariff heading, considering HSN explanatory notes and judicial pronouncements. The prayer was amended on 01.08.2025.

Held

The Court held that so long as the appellant's activities are confined to what was approved in the Pachiappa Chettiar case, their product would fall under Customs Tariff Heading (CETH) 2401 20 90. The reasoning is based on the precedent set in the Pachiappa Chettiar case, which appears to have established the criteria for classifying such products. The Court found that the appellant's activities met these criteria. Consequently, the order impugned in the writ petition and the order of the learned Single Judge were set aside. The writ petition and the writ appeal were allowed. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant's unmanufactured tobacco products should be classified under heading 2401 20 90 of the Customs Tariff, considering their nature, processing, HSN explanatory notes, and judicial pronouncements? (Question of law and fact, turning on classification principles). Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: Argued that their unmanufactured tobacco, based on its nature and the processes applied, should be classified under heading 2401 20 90. They relied on HSN explanatory notes and prior judicial pronouncements to support their claim for this specific classification. Respondent/Revenue: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the context implies a disagreement with the appellant's proposed classification, leading to the impugned order and subsequent appeal.