2006 (11) TMI 56 - AT - Central Excise

Classification Alleged that the meat article was put in the unit containers and hence classifiable under sub-heading 1601.10 of CET and attracting duty at the rate of 8% ad-valorem After considering all the facts reject the allegation on the appellant

Summary

Issues: Classification of meat articles in loose pack under C.E.T. sub-heading 1601.90 vs. 1601.10

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, MUMBAI, addressed the issue of the classification of meat articles in loose pack manufactured by the respondents for central excise duty purposes. The Revenue contended that the goods should be classified under C.E.T. sub-heading 1601.10 attracting duty at 8% ad valorem, while the respondents argued for classification under C.E.T. sub-heading 1601.90 at a nil rate of duty, a position accepted by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).

The Tribunal noted that the goods were supplied in plastic bags with the brand name of the respondents, but the bags did not have pre-printed quantities and were not sealed. The adjudicating authority classified the goods under C.E.T. sub-heading 1601.10 based on the assumption that the plastic bags were unit containers due to containing predetermined quantities. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that unit containers, as per various dictionaries, must contain uniform quantities of contents, which was not the case with the goods in question. Therefore, the goods in plastic bags without pre-printed quantities and not sealed could not be considered unit containers for classification under C.E.T. sub-heading 1601.10.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to classify the goods under C.E.T. sub-heading 1601.90, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The judgment clarifies the importance of uniform quantities in unit containers for classification purposes and provides a clear interpretation of the relevant sub-headings under the Central Excise Tariff.