1988 (7) TMI 190 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: The correct classification of "Truity Fruity" and whether it constitutes a sale.

Classification of "Truity Fruity": The respondents claimed that "Truity Fruity" was not for sale but for further production at their units. The Assistant Collector classified it under sub-heading 2001.10-CET as it was used in the manufacture of products and transferred to other units. The Collector (Appeals) disagreed, stating the goods were not intended for sale as they were not marked or labeled. The Tribunal found the transactions akin to sales as per the Central Excises and Salt Act, rejecting the Collector's view.

Sale Consideration and Definition: The Tribunal noted that the transfer memos indicated monetary consideration, thus constituting a sale. The Collector (Appeals) erred in concluding the goods were not intended for sale, as they were manufactured for sale to sister units. Citing legal definitions, the Tribunal upheld the Assistant Collector's classification under sub-heading 2001.10-CET.

Comparison to Legal Precedents: The Tribunal reviewed a case citing the Supreme Court's judgment on sales to branch offices. It distinguished the cases, emphasizing the consideration involved in the transactions. The Tribunal found the lower authorities' classification in line with the Central Excises and Salt Act.

Unit Containers and Sale Intent: The Collector (Appeals) argued that the goods were not "put up in unit containers" due to lack of marking and labeling. The Tribunal disagreed, stating the Tariff did not require such markings for inter-unit sales. It emphasized interpreting statutes based on plain language without adding extraneous conditions.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Collector (Appeals) order and upholding the Assistant Collector's classification of the products under sub-heading 2001.10-CET.