9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (2) TMI 377 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Whether "bubblegum" manufactured and cleared by the appellant was entitled to exemption under S.No. 247 of Notification No. 6/2002. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, involved a dispute regarding the classification of "bubblegum" for excise duty exemption under S.No. 247 of Notification No. 6/2002. The issue revolved around whether "bubblegum" should be considered as chewing gum falling under a specific sub-heading or as sugar confectionery under a broader category. The Tribunal examined the relevant tariff provisions and legal precedents to determine the correct classification. The Tribunal noted that the exemption under S.No. 247 applied to sugar confectionery falling under sub-Heading 1704.90, which encompassed all sugar confectionery items not classified specifically elsewhere. It highlighted that the specific sub-heading 1704.10 was reserved for "chewing gum," indicating that all other sugar confectionery items, including bubblegum, should be classified under 1704.90 as "other" based on the tariff scheme. Referring to a previous judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gum Products P. Ltd., which distinguished between bubble gum and chewing gum as separate products, the Tribunal emphasized the differentiation in the Central Excise Tariff between chewing gum and bubble gum. The Tribunal clarified that the tariff scheme and the Supreme Court's ruling supported the view that bubblegum should not be treated as chewing gum for classification purposes. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the demand raised by treating "bubblegum" as chewing gum was incorrect. In light of the tariff provisions and the Supreme Court's judgment, the Tribunal allowed the stay application and suspended the recovery until the appeal was disposed of. This decision provided clarity on the classification of bubblegum for excise duty exemption and upheld the appellant's position based on the legal interpretation and precedents cited during the proceedings.
|
