2006 (9) TMI 56 - AT - Central Excise

Classification Revenue contended that the product of the appellant are fall under the single heading i.e. 2108.99 of CETA, 1985 but appellant can t agree with it After considering the detail authority rejected the contention of revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of repacked full fat Soya flour.
2. Classification of cake improvers and liquid emulsifiers.
3. Classification of Cake N Soft.
4. Classification of bread improvers and Cake Lite.
5. Classification of corn flour.
6. Timeliness of review by the Commissioner.
7. Excess quantification of demand.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Repacked Full Fat Soya Flour:
- Appellant's Argument: No manufacturing process is carried out; hence, it should be classified under Chapter 11, attracting nil duty.
- Revenue's Argument: The product is minerally fortified, thus should be classified under Heading 2108.99.
- Tribunal's Decision: No evidence of mineral fortification was provided by Revenue. The label alone cannot determine classification. The product remains non-excisable under Chapter 11 as no manufacturing process has occurred.

2. Classification of Cake Improvers and Liquid Emulsifiers:
- Appellant's Argument: These should be classified under Chapter Heading 1508.90, similar to Chapter Heading 1517.90 of HSN, as they are vegetable fat-based products.
- Revenue's Argument: These should be classified under Heading 2108 as edible preparations.
- Tribunal's Decision: The products are akin to 'Bakery Shortenings' and should be classified under Chapter 1508.90. The products do not meet the criteria for edible preparations under Chapter 21.

3. Classification of Cake N Soft:
- Appellant's Argument: Classified under CSH 1504.00, equivalent to 1516.20 of HSN, as it undergoes chemical transformation through inter-esterification.
- Revenue's Argument: Classified under Chapter 2108.99 as a bakery improver.
- Tribunal's Decision: The product undergoes chemical transformation and should be classified under CSH 1504.00. It does not meet the criteria for classification under Chapter 2108.

4. Classification of Bread Improvers and Cake Lite:
- Appellant's Argument: Classified under Heading 1905.90 or alternatively under Heading 1101.00, as they are primarily flours with minor additives.
- Revenue's Argument: Classified under Heading 2108.99 based on their end-use as bread improvers.
- Tribunal's Decision: The products are primarily flours and should be classified under Chapter 11. Specific headings should be preferred over residuary headings.

5. Classification of Corn Flour:
- Appellant's Argument: Classified under CSH 1103 as it is maize starch repacked after sieving and sifting.
- Revenue's Argument: Classified under Chapter CSH 1901.19 as it allegedly contains added ingredients.
- Tribunal's Decision: No evidence of added ingredients was provided by Revenue. The product should be classified under Chapter 1103 as maize starch.

6. Timeliness of Review by the Commissioner:
- Appellant's Argument: The demands are barred by limitation as the review was done beyond the 1-year period provided under Section 35E of the Act.
- Tribunal's Decision: The submission is upheld, and the demands are barred by limitation.

7. Excess Quantification of Demand:
- Appellant's Argument: Excess quantification of Rs. 1,33,28,954/- for products under 1508.90, which were not named in the notice.
- Tribunal's Decision: Only allegations specified in the notice can be confirmed. The excess quantification is not valid.

Conclusion:
The appeals are allowed, and the orders impugned are set aside. Classification and duty demands are to be made as per the classifications determined by the Tribunal.