2002 (3) TMI 104 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of products under Heading 19.04 or Heading 2108.99.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns the classification of edible preparations manufactured by the respondents. The Revenue argues for classification under Heading 19.04, while the respondents advocate for Heading 2108.99. The Assistant Commissioner initially accepted the respondents' classification, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the Revenue's appeal. Heading 19.04 pertains to prepared foods obtained by swelling or roasting cereals, excluding corn, flour, and meal. The products in question, such as Monginis Namkeen Snack foods and Peppy Namkeen Snack Foods, contain ingredients beyond cereals and are not obtained by swelling or roasting, thus not aligning with Heading 19.04. Similarly, products like Rompa chompa tomato gol mol namkeen and Hello Namkeen snack food do not meet the criteria for Heading 19.04.

The Tribunal notes that the products do not satisfy the requirements of Heading 19.04 as they contain ingredients other than cereals and are not obtained by swelling or roasting. The Tribunal also references past decisions to support this interpretation. Conversely, Heading 2108.99 covers all kinds of edible preparations not elsewhere specified, including namkeen mixtures and similar products. The Tribunal finds that the products in dispute fall under Heading 2108.99, as confirmed by the authorities below. The Tribunal highlights that the respondents had consistently classified the products under Heading 2108 in previous declarations, which were accepted by the department without objection. The products were also tested and confirmed as namkeen and ready-to-eat snack foods. Therefore, the Tribunal upholds the classification under Heading 2108.99, as determined by the lower authorities.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismisses the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to classify the products under Heading 2108.99. The Tribunal finds no grounds to differ with the lower authorities' findings, considering the facts, circumstances, and legal precedents discussed. The impugned order is upheld, and the Revenue's appeal is deemed without merit.