Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2009 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2009 (8) TMI 463 - AT - Central Excise


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.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates