9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 680 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - Cheeslings - to be classified under Tariff Item 21069099 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or not - benefit of Sr No.10 of N/N. 2/2011-C.E. dated 01.03.2011 as amended - HELD THAT - The issue with regard to availment of the benefit of exemption Notification No. 3/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006 is no more open for any debate, in view of the final Order passed by this Tribunal in the case of the appellants themselves, PARLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, MUMBAI-IV 2017 (10) TMI 1182 - CESTAT MUMBAI . In the said order, the Tribunal has held that Cheeslings though are not fried items, but since those were sold as Namkeen , the benefit of Sl. No. 29 in the Notification No.3/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006 should be available to the appellant. There are no merits in the impugned order, insofar as it has confirmed the adjudged demands on the appellant - appeal allowed in favor of appellant.
Issues involved: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and benefit of duty exemption under Notification No. 3/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006.
Classification of goods: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing various food items, including 'Cheeslings', claimed classification under Tariff Item 21069099. Department contended that 'Cheeslings' fall under Notification No. 2/2011-C.E. attracting duty liability @5%. Show cause notice issued, leading to confirmation of duty demand and penalty by original authority. Benefit of duty exemption: Appellant claimed benefit under Notification No. 3/2006-C.E. Tribunal referred to a previous order where it was held that even though 'Cheeslings' are not fried items, they are sold as 'Namkeen' and thus eligible for exemption under Sr. No. 29 of the said notification covering similar edible preparations in ready for consumption form. Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant based on the principle of common parlance and interpretation of the relevant entry. Conclusion: Tribunal found no merits in the impugned order confirming the demands on the appellant, setting it aside and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.
|
