9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (10) TMI 78 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved: Classification of goods described as "poha" under heading 19.04 of the tariff.
Summary: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved the classification of "poha" manufactured by the appellant under heading 19.04 of the tariff. The Collector had classified the goods as processed foods under this heading. The appellant contended that the manufacturing process did not involve swelling or roasting, thus challenging this classification. The goods in question, 'poha', were manufactured from maize, rice, and wheat. The proposed classification under heading 19.04 was based on swelling or roasting during manufacturing and packaging in containers for sale. The appellant argued that the goods did not undergo swelling or roasting and were not ready-to-eat, requiring cooking before consumption. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant heading 19.04, which covered prepared foods obtained by swelling or roasting of cereals. The appellant's claim that grains were not subjected to swelling or roasting was refuted, as cooking grains in a pressure cooker causes swelling due to water absorption. The distinction between 'cooking' and 'swelling' was deemed unsupported, with swelling being a result of cooking. Regarding the classification criteria, the Tribunal noted that partially pre-cooked foods were covered under the heading, contrary to the appellant's argument that 'poha' required further frying before consumption. The Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature supported this interpretation, stating that partially pre-cooked foods needed boiling before consumption. The chemical examiner's report, cited by the appellant, did not aid their case as it lacked relevance to the classification issue. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand, citing the appellant's failure to demonstrate a bona fide belief in their classification. The penalty imposed was reduced for the firm but set aside for one of its partners. In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, confirming the duty demand but adjusting the penalties imposed.
|
