1977 (6) TMI 102 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of whether essence of chicken is liable for excise duty under Entry 1B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing essence of chicken, challenged the imposition of excise duty on the product under Entry 1B of the Act. The dispute arose when the Superintendent of Central Excise classified essence of chicken as a product falling under the purview of Tariff Item No. 1B, making it liable for excise duty. The petitioners contended that essence of chicken should not be considered a product of meat and thus not subject to excise duty. The essence of chicken is manufactured through a specific process involving chicken flesh and bones, not boiled like soup. The tariff description under Entry 1B includes various prepared or preserved foods intended for sale, such as meat extracts and meat juices.

The key question revolved around whether the term "meat" in the context of the Act encompassed chicken flesh or was limited to flesh of certain animals like cows, buffaloes, goats, and sheep. The court examined definitions of "meat" from sources like Encyclopaedia Britannica and Customs Tariff Act, 1975, to determine the scope of the term. While acknowledging that meat could include poultry in a broader sense, the court emphasized that the essence of chicken involved both flesh and bones in its production process, making it distinct from traditional meat extracts.

Further, the court analyzed the classification of essence of chicken under Entry 6 of the notification as "soups and broths." Despite the essence of chicken not fitting the conventional definition of soup, the court interpreted "broth" as an infusion or decoction of animal substances used as food. Applying principles of statutory interpretation, the court concluded that essence of chicken, being prepared and preserved food, fell under Item 1B of the schedule, specifically Item 6 for broths. The court rejected the argument that the essence of chicken was primarily used for convalescence and not as a regular food item, asserting that its classification as a broth subjected it to excise duty.

Ultimately, the court upheld the authorities' decision to levy excise duty on the essence of chicken, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The judgment emphasized the product's categorization as a prepared and preserved food item, thereby making it liable for excise duty under the relevant tariff entry.