Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2009 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (8) TMI 463 - AT - Central ExciseFoodmixes- Notification No. 3/2006-C.E.- Classification- the disputed issue in the present appeal is as regards the interpretation of the Notification No. 3/06-C.E., dated 1-3-06. Sr. No. 28 of the said notification grants concessional rate of duty to the goods falling under Heading No. 2106 and described as - Texturised Vegetable Proteins (Soya bari), and instant food mixes such as Pongal mix, Vadai mix, Pacoda mix, Payasam mix, Gulab jamnu mix, Rava Dosa mix, Idli mix, Dosai mix, Murruku mix, and Kesari mix. As the products being manufactured by the respondent are Gota Mix, Khaman Mix, Dal Wada mix etc., which are not specified by name in the above description, Revenue entertained a view that the same are not entitled to the benefit of the notification. Accordingly, demand for the period 1-3-06 to 29-1-07 was raised vide and confirmed by original adjudicating authority. Held that- We find no merits in the above contention of the department. Admittedly, the notification exempts instant food mixes. The products manufactured by the respondent are nothing but instant food mixes.we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by the Revenue is, accordingly, rejected.
Issues: Interpretation of Notification No. 3/06-C.E., dated 1-3-06 regarding concessional rate of duty for specific goods.
In this case, the Revenue filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the interpretation of Notification No. 3/06-C.E., dated 1-3-06. The disputed issue revolved around whether certain food products manufactured by the respondent, such as Gota Mix, Khaman Mix, and Dal Wada mix, were entitled to the benefit of the notification, which granted concessional duty rates to goods like Texturised Vegetable Proteins and instant food mixes. The Revenue argued that since the respondent's products were not specifically named in the notification, they should not be covered. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the notification exempted various instant food mixes, and the specific mention of certain products was illustrative rather than exhaustive, as indicated by the use of the term "such as." The Tribunal analyzed the language of the notification and the arguments presented. It noted that the notification exempted instant food mixes and further elaborated on this by providing examples using the term "such as." The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the term "such as" was illustrative and not exhaustive, based on the definition of the word "such" as indicating items of the same kind or degree. The Tribunal cited precedents, including the Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions, where similar terms like "such as" were interpreted as illustrative rather than restrictive. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision in favor of the respondent. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the notification's use of "such as" indicated examples and not an exhaustive list. The decision was pronounced on 25-8-2009 by the Tribunal members Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri B.S.V. Murthy.
|