Commissioner of Customs Vs Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets & Snacks (CESTAT Chennai)
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chennai has dismissed an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, upholding the classification of an imported “Namkeen System HWF 2412 (Heat Wave Frying System)” as a frying machine. The Revenue had challenged the Order-in-Appeal dated September 18, 2014, which had reversed the classification initially adopted by the Original Authority.
The case originated from a Bill of Entry filed by the respondent-assessee, Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets & Snacks, on September 5, 2011, for the import of the aforementioned system. The assessee initially classified the goods under CTH 84388020 as ‘other machinery,’ attracting a Basic Customs Duty (BCD) of 5%, CVD of 10%, and Special CVD of 4%.
However, the Original Authority, after examining product information, issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on June 8, 2012. The SCN proposed to reclassify the imported system under CTH 84198120, which pertains to ‘other kitchen machines,’ and subsequently demanded differential duty. Despite the assessee’s submission justifying its original classification, the Original Authority confirmed the reclassification and duty demand through an Order-in-Original dated April 23, 2013.
Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets & Snacks then appealed to the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority, in its Order-in-Appeal dated September 18, 2014, accepted the assessee’s classification claim, setting aside the Original Authority’s reclassification. This decision led to the present appeal by the Revenue before CESTAT.
During the CESTAT proceedings, the respondent-assessee did not make any representations, requests for adjournment, or written submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal on its merits after hearing the Departmental Representative for the Appellant-Revenue.
The central question before CESTAT was whether the First Appellate Authority was justified in upholding the classification declared by the respondent. The Tribunal considered the nomenclature and features of the machine as described in the product catalogue, which were also extracted in the Order-in-Appeal. It was noted that even the Original Authority, in its Order-in-Original (para 6.3), had observed that the imported machine was designed for the “industrial preparation/production or manufacture (processing) of various food items” and that product literature described it as “the most automated frying system for industrial purposes.”
CESTAT’s key finding was that “the fact which is clear is that the machine in question is meant for frying only.” The Tribunal highlighted that CTH 84198120, under which the Revenue sought to classify the goods, specifically refers to ‘other kitchen machines.’ However, a more specific entry, CTH 84198110, exists for ‘fryers,’ which the Original Authority had “conveniently ignored.” CESTAT further observed that the imported machinery was intended for commercial production, distinguishing it from general ‘Kitchen machines’ covered by CTH 84198120.
Based on these considerations, CESTAT found no infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal regarding the classification. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue’s appeal lacked merit and dismissed it. The order was pronounced in open court on May 28, 2025. This decision underscores the importance of specific tariff entries over broader classifications when determining customs duties, particularly for specialized industrial equipment.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
