1990 (3) TMI 194 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Classification of fruit juice concentrate/pulp/tomato paste under sub-heading 2001.10 or 2001.90.

Details of the Judgment:
The dispute revolved around the classification of fruit juice concentrate/pulp/tomato paste manufactured by the appellants under sub-heading 2001.10 as per Revenue or under sub-heading 2001.90 as claimed by the appellants. The appellants argued that the products were not sold in fixed pre-determined quantities and were not intended to be sold in unit containers as required by sub-heading 2001.10. They contended that the products were sold in big barrels of varied capacities and based on weight, not on the basis of the barrel. The appellants relied on a previous Tribunal decision and highlighted that the products were not subject to the labeling and packaging requirements under the Food Product Order.

The Revenue countered by stating that the definition of unit containers in the new tariff entry 2001.10 necessitated pre-determined quantities known to the customers, regardless of the sizes of the containers. They argued that the inclusion of packing material costs was irrelevant for classification purposes and that the products were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 2001.10. The Revenue also emphasized that the labeling and sealing requirements under the Food Products Order did not apply to all products manufactured by the appellants.

Upon considering the arguments, the Tribunal analyzed the specific insertion of the definition of unit containers in the new tariff entry and compared it with the old tariff entry. The Tribunal noted that the description and requirements for classification remained consistent between the old and new tariff entries, emphasizing the need for sales in unit containers with pre-determined quantities. The Tribunal concluded that the goods in question, cleared in barrels, did not constitute sales in unit containers as per sub-heading 2001.10 but were classifiable under sub-heading 2001.90. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.