1. In Hardeep Singh v.

State of Punjab, reported in 2014 (3) SCC 92, at Paragraphs 43,

"43. The court cannot proceed with an assumption that the legislature enacting the statute has
committed a mistake and where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, the court
cannot go behind the language of the statute so as to add or subtract a word playing the role of a
political reformer or of a wise counsel to the legislature. The court has to proceed on the footing
that the legislature intended what it has said and even if there is some defect in the phraseology
etc., it is for others than the court to rectify that defect. The statute requires to be interpreted
without Appeal No(s).: C/41118/2014 C/41907/2015, C/41715-41717/2017 & C/40178/2020
doing any violence to the language used therein. The court cannot re-write, recast or reframe the
legislation for the reason that it has no power to legislate.

2. Heinz India Limited vs . The State of Kerela ( 04 . 05 . 2023 - SC )

Case Note: Sales Tax/VAT - Classification of product - Rate of tax - Appellant filed its annual
return which was accepted by assessing officer tax payableon taxable turnover was eight percent,
and treatment on sale of Nycil prickly heat powder was accepted to be item falling under Entry
79 of First Schedule to KGST Act - Revisional authority was of view that order of assessment
passed was prejudicial to interest of the revenue and set aside assessment on premise that levy of
tax at eight percent on Prickly heat powder by treating it as medicine by assessing authority was
prejudicial to interest of revenue and rate of tax at twenty percent was to be applied as applicable
to Medicated Talcum Powder - Appellant carried matter before Appellate Tribunal, which
affirmed revisional order - High Court, on further revision, concurred with classification adopted
by revenue - Hence, present appeal - Whether Tribunal erred in holding that product Nycil
Prickly Heat Powder was classifiable not under Entry 79 of First Schedule to Kerala General
Sales Tax Act, 1963 as medicine but as Medicated Talcum Powder. Facts: Appellant-Assessee
filed its annual return which was accepted by the assessing officer, the tax payable on taxable
turnover was eight percent, and the treatment on the sale of Nycil prickly heat powder was
accepted to be an item falling under Entry 79 of the First Schedule to KGST Act. The revisional
authority was of the view that the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority was
prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, it initiated proceedings to set aside the assessment of
the assessing authority on the premise that levy of tax at eight percent on Prickly heat powder by
treating it as medicine by the assessing authority was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue
and the rate of tax at twenty percent was to be applied as applicable to Medicated Talcum
Powder. However, the revisional authority set aside the assessment order and remanded the
matter to the assessing authority to pass fresh assessment order by levying tax at twenty percent.
Aggrieved, Appellant carried the matter before the Appellate Tribunal, which affirmed the
revisional order and rejected its appeal. The High Court, on further revision, concurred with the
classification adopted by the revenue. The court was of the opinion that the product was not of
common use by consumers as a daily use talcum powder, but normally used for the specific
purpose of treating prickly heat and its use discontinued after the ailment ceased. Held, while
dismissing the appeal: (i) The use of the term includes after talcum powder, followed by
medicated talcum powder in this Court's opinion could lead to only one inference, which was
that the clear legislative intent was that all kinds of talcum powders, which contained
medications should necessarily be treated as cosmetics, falling under Entry 127. The pointed
phraseology in fact concludes the issue, leaving no scope for the court to interpret the Entry as
including any class of goods, other than such as Nycil prickly heat powder, which was a talcum
powder that was also medicated. A salutary Rule for fiscal legislation interpretation was that
words used in the statute must be given their plain meaning. The court's function was not
to give a strained and unnatural meaning to the provision. The intention of the legislature,
manifested in plain words, must be accepted. [48] (ii) In the present case, the clear legislative
intent, of inserting a carefully worded entry, which was a hybrid one, i.e. describing an Article
that contained medicinal ingredients, as well as those used for cosmetics, and yet placing such a
creature in the category of cosmetics, ruled out altogether any interpretive scope of classifying it
as a medicinal preparation, or drug or medicine. Therefore, this Court could not fault the High
Court for drawing the conclusion that it did. [49]

3. Float Glass Centre vs. Commissioner of Customs (18.07.2024 - CESTAT - Chennai)

Case Note: Customs - Clear Float glass - Classification of - Commissioner ordered for
reclassification of imported Float Glass under CTH 70052990 and confirmed demand of short
levied duties - Hence, present appeal - Whether imported Clear Float Glass, was classifiable
under CTH 70051090 or under CTH 7005 2990 as re-classified by Department - Held,
classification of any imported goods had to be determined in terms of provisions of
Customs Tariff Act, 1975- Tribunal in case of Sharp India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
(Imports), Nhava Sheva, Raigad held that classification of imported goods to be determined in
accordance with Indian Customs Tariff and not solely on basis of code mentioned in Certificate-
of-Origin - Therefore, imported Clear Float Glass was more appropriately classifiable under
Customs Tariff Heading 7005 1090 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and thus was eligible for
exemption of benefit of Notification - Appeal allowed. [14.2],[16] Facts: The Appellant had
imported Clear Float Glass (CFG) from Malaysia classifying them under CTH 7005 1090 and
cleared the same at Nil rate of BCD availing exemption under Notification. The imports were
provisionally assessed at the time of imports and subsequently, based on test reports assessments
were finalised classifying the imported goods under CTH 70051090 allowing the exemption
benefit of the Notification. However, during the course of audit conducted by CRA, it was
pointed out that the imported Float Glass was classifiable under CTH 7005 2990 attracting BCD
at ten percent and consequently not eligible for the benefit of Notification. Hence it was alleged
that the CFG imported from Malaysia was wilfully mis-classified under CTH 70051090 for the
purpose of availing FTA benefit of the said Notification, resulting in short levy of applicable
Customs [Link] to the audit objection, a Show Cause Noticewas issued to the
Appellant proposing toreject the classification of CFG under CTH 70051090 adopted by the
Appellant for the subject imports and to re-classify the same under CTH 70052990 thereby
seeking to deny the benefit of Notification and demand differential Customs dutiesarising on
account of short levy. After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order- in-
Original rejected the assessments and declared classification of CFG under CTH 70051090 by
the Appellant and ordered for re-classification under CTH 70052990 and re-assessment of the
subject imports denying the benefit of the Notification and confirmed the demand of short levied
Customs duties. Hence, present appeal. Held: Classification of float glass: (i) It was held that
classification of any imported goods has to be determined in terms of the provisions of
Customs Tariff Act, 1975 including Section Notes and Chapter Notes read with the General
Rules for Interpretation of Tariff (GIR). In the case of Sharp India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of
Customs (Imports), Nhava Sheva, Raigad, the Tribunal had held that the classification of
imported goods to be determined in accordance with Indian Customs Tariff and not solely
on the basis of code mentioned in Certificate-of-Origin.[14.2] (ii) Thus, the imported Clear
Float Glass was more appropriately classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 7005 1090 of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and thus was eligible for exemption of the benefit of the Notification.
The impugned order passed by the Commissioner were ordered to be set aside.[16]

4. Glanbia Performance Nutrition India Pvt. Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Case Note: Customs - Imported goods - Classification of - Present appeals filed by appellants
against change of classification of goods by original and first appellate authority - Whether
impugned goods are rightly classifiable under Heading 2106, sub heading 2106 1000 of Customs
Tariff - Held, classification relies on heading and relevant Section or Chapter Notes -
Supplementary Note 5(a) explicitly places Protein Concentrate and Textured Substances
under "Heading 2106" - Following Rule-1, appellant's imported goods fall under Heading
2106 per Supplementary Note 5(a) - Any alternative interpretation would render
Supplementary Note 5(a) meaningless - Appeal dismissed.