2017 (10) TMI 1182 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 3/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 - whether the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant namely Cheeselings and Musst Bites edible preparations are eligible for exemption N/N. 3/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 as Namkeen under entry sr. no. 29? - Held that - the products in question are Cheeselings and Musst Bites . Though these products are not fried items but sold as Namkeen. There is no definition of Namkeen. Therefore, it cannot be concluded on the basis that whether the goods is a fried one or otherwise. In such case, the principle of common parlance has to be applied. From the package of the goods, it is clear that on both products, the word Namkeen is clearly declared. Therefore, the product in the common parlance is bought and sold as Namkeen only. The product Cheeselings and Musst Bites are covered under Sr. No. 29 of the exemption N/N. 3/2006-C.E dated 01.03.2006 - the exemption is eligible to the appellant s product. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether goods "Cheeselings" and "Musst Bites" qualify as "Namkeen" under exemption notification 3/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Qualification as "Namkeen" under Exemption Notification
The appellant claimed that "Cheeselings" and "Musst Bites" are "Namkeen" covered under entry no. 29 of notification 3/2006-CE. The counsel argued that the products, though not fried, are consumed as "Namkeen" and thus qualify for the exemption. The adjudicating authority had denied the exemption based on the fried product criterion. However, the appellant contended that even if not classified as "Namkeen," they fall under similar edible preparations in ready-to-consume form as per the notification. Citing a Board circular, the appellant argued for exemption under entry no. 29. The revenue disagreed, relying on previous judgments to support their stance.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Entry No. 29
The Tribunal noted that the products in question, though not fried, were labeled and sold as "Namkeen." Since there was no specific definition of "Namkeen," the principle of common parlance was applied. The Tribunal observed that entry no. 29 covered not only "Namkeen" but also similar edible preparations in ready-to-consume form. Therefore, even if the products did not strictly qualify as "Namkeen," they fell under the broader category specified in the entry. Consequently, the Tribunal held that "Cheeselings" and "Musst Bites" were eligible for exemption under entry no. 29 of the notification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting the appellant the exemption for their products. As the matter was decided on its merits, other issues such as cenvat credit and abatement disputes were not addressed. The judgment was pronounced on 18/10/2017, with the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant.