Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2007 (3) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2007 (3) TMI 14 - SC - Central Excise


  1. 2015 (4) TMI 349 - SC
  2. 2008 (2) TMI 3 - SC
  3. 2022 (12) TMI 909 - HC
  4. 2021 (7) TMI 230 - HC
  5. 2015 (8) TMI 1074 - HC
  6. 2010 (8) TMI 411 - HC
  7. 2025 (2) TMI 554 - AT
  8. 2025 (2) TMI 12 - AT
  9. 2025 (1) TMI 1322 - AT
  10. 2025 (1) TMI 528 - AT
  11. 2024 (12) TMI 350 - AT
  12. 2024 (10) TMI 1627 - AT
  13. 2024 (5) TMI 1047 - AT
  14. 2023 (12) TMI 480 - AT
  15. 2023 (9) TMI 62 - AT
  16. 2023 (7) TMI 826 - AT
  17. 2023 (5) TMI 389 - AT
  18. 2022 (12) TMI 451 - AT
  19. 2022 (9) TMI 1158 - AT
  20. 2022 (5) TMI 749 - AT
  21. 2022 (1) TMI 757 - AT
  22. 2020 (9) TMI 643 - AT
  23. 2019 (11) TMI 240 - AT
  24. 2019 (10) TMI 96 - AT
  25. 2018 (8) TMI 1458 - AT
  26. 2018 (1) TMI 686 - AT
  27. 2017 (10) TMI 134 - AT
  28. 2017 (4) TMI 799 - AT
  29. 2017 (3) TMI 724 - AT
  30. 2017 (3) TMI 1437 - AT
  31. 2016 (10) TMI 614 - AT
  32. 2016 (8) TMI 1107 - AT
  33. 2016 (6) TMI 539 - AT
  34. 2016 (3) TMI 802 - AT
  35. 2016 (3) TMI 262 - AT
  36. 2016 (2) TMI 251 - AT
  37. 2015 (12) TMI 224 - AT
  38. 2015 (11) TMI 345 - AT
  39. 2015 (9) TMI 1036 - AT
  40. 2015 (11) TMI 710 - AT
  41. 2015 (6) TMI 543 - AT
  42. 2015 (2) TMI 343 - AT
  43. 2014 (6) TMI 592 - AT
  44. 2014 (9) TMI 684 - AT
  45. 2015 (11) TMI 251 - AT
  46. 2014 (4) TMI 362 - AT
  47. 2014 (2) TMI 147 - AT
  48. 2014 (7) TMI 314 - AT
  49. 2015 (8) TMI 807 - AT
  50. 2013 (12) TMI 259 - AT
  51. 2013 (7) TMI 603 - AT
  52. 2012 (12) TMI 424 - AT
  53. 2012 (12) TMI 477 - AT
  54. 2013 (10) TMI 262 - AT
  55. 2011 (9) TMI 102 - AT
  56. 2011 (4) TMI 675 - AT
  57. 2010 (11) TMI 219 - AT
  58. 2010 (11) TMI 911 - AT
  59. 2010 (10) TMI 203 - AT
  60. 2010 (8) TMI 316 - AT
  61. 2010 (7) TMI 297 - AT
  62. 2009 (1) TMI 125 - AT
  63. 2008 (10) TMI 109 - AT
  64. 2007 (9) TMI 505 - AT
  65. 2025 (2) TMI 318 - AAR
  66. 2024 (12) TMI 1467 - AAR
  67. 2024 (1) TMI 1450 - AAR
  68. 2023 (6) TMI 653 - AAR
Issues:
1. Classification of 'roasted peanuts' and 'moongfali masala mazedar' under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Applicability of exemption notification No. 4/97-C.E. dated 1-3-1997 to the items in question.
3. Determination of cum-duty price for excise duty computation.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The Department argued that 'roasted peanuts' and 'moongfali masala mazedar' should be classified under Heading 20.01 in Chapter 20 as preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts, and other edible parts of plants. The Department contended that the essential character of the items remained intact even after processing. The Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal's view that 'roasted peanuts' should indeed be classified under Chapter 20, as the essential structure of the peanut is not changed by roasting, and the process is not excluded in Chapter 20. The Explanatory notes of HSN also supported this classification.

Issue 2: The appellant argued that 'roasted peanuts' should fall under Chapter 21 as miscellaneous edible preparations, relying on Heading 21.08. However, the Court disagreed, stating that 'roasted peanuts' are not commonly known as namkeen and do not match the characteristics of items under Heading 21.08. The Court upheld the classification of 'roasted peanuts' under Chapter 20, not Chapter 21, denying the appellant's claim for exemption.

Issue 3: In a related appeal, the Department sought recomputation of duty based on the cum-duty price for 'roasted peanuts,' as the appellant had cleared the goods assuming exemption under Chapter 21. The Department argued that the duty should be recalculated based on the normal price inclusive of duty. The Court referenced previous judgments to establish that the wholesale price does not always equate to the cum-duty price. The Court remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority to determine the value and recomputed duty based on the specific circumstances of the case, emphasizing the need to differentiate between profit and duty elements in the price charged.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, upheld the classification of 'roasted peanuts' under Chapter 20, denied the exemption claim, and remitted the matter for recomputation of duty based on the specific principles outlined in the judgment.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates