Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (1) TMI 113 - AT - Central ExciseScented supari made from the activity of cracking of betelnut followed by roasting coating with oil and addition of sweetening & flavouring agents - in the end product the betel nut remains a betel nut - process involved in the manufacture of sweetened betel nut pieces does not result in the manufacture of a new product as the end product continues to retain its original character though in a modified form cutting betel nuts & making scented supari is not manufacture so not duitiable
Issues:
Appeal against demand of duty on 'scented supari' for a specific period - Classification of the product under Central Excise Act - Claim of non-excisability based on 'manufacture' definition - Acceptance of claim by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a related case - Adjudication of show-cause notices by the department - Denial of SSI benefit - Tribunal's decision on excisability of the product. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against a demand of duty on 'scented supari' for a specific period. The product resulted from activities like cracking of betelnut, roasting, coating with oil, and addition of sweetening and flavoring agents. The assessee purchased the product in bulk from M/s. ARR Enterprises, repacked it, and marketed it. The assessee contended that the repacked product was not excisable as per the definition of 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. However, they classified the products under SH 2106.90 under protest in May 1994, which was not accepted by the department. Subsequently, the department issued show-cause notices demanding duty on the product by classifying it under SH 2107.00 and denying SSI benefit. 2. The learned counsel referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a related case involving Crane Betel Nut Powder Works v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tirupathi. The Supreme Court considered whether mechanical crushing of betelnuts followed by sweetening amounted to 'manufacture'. The Supreme Court's judgment highlighted that the process did not result in a new product with a different character and use. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) correctly analyzed the factual and legal situation, leading to the conclusion that the process did not result in a new and distinct product. 3. The learned SDR acknowledged the decision of the apex court. In light of the Supreme Court's ruling, the Tribunal held that the 'scented supari' cleared by the assessee was not excisable during the disputed period. The Tribunal concluded that there was no 'manufacture' in the activity performed by M/s. ARR Enterprises. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment showcases the issues involved, the legal arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal based on the interpretation of relevant legal principles and precedents.
|