1992 (12) TMI 134 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of 'Chironjidana' under Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Classification of Ghadi-sakkar, Rewadi, and Gathi/Batasha under Central Excise Tariff Act.
3. Application of common parlance test for classification.
4. The applicability of exemptions under Notifications 33/86 and 15/89.
5. Determination of 'Prasad' or 'Prasadam' as excisable goods.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of 'Chironjidana' under Central Excise Tariff Act:
The primary issue revolves around whether 'Chironjidana' should be classified under sub-heading 1704.90 as sugar confectionery or under sub-heading 2107.10 as 'Prasad'. The Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, argued it should be classified under 1704.90, while the Collector (Appeals) classified it under 2107.10 based on the Chemical Examiner's report stating it is generally used as 'prasadam'. The Tribunal, however, found that the product, being commercially manufactured and sold in shops, does not meet the criteria of 'prasadam' which is typically prepared and distributed in temples. Consequently, 'Chironjidana' was classified under sub-heading 1704.90 as sugar confectionery.

2. Classification of Ghadi-sakkar, Rewadi, and Gathi/Batasha under Central Excise Tariff Act:
The Assistant Collector initially classified these products under sub-heading 1704.90, which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal confirmed this classification, noting that these products are predominantly made of sugar and are marketed as boiled sweets. The Tribunal referenced the HSN Explanatory Note under heading 1704, which includes sugar preparations marketed as sweetmeats or confectionery. Thus, Ghadi-sakkar, Rewadi, and Gathi/Batasha were correctly classified under sub-heading 1704.90.

3. Application of common parlance test for classification:
The appellant argued that the common parlance test should be applied, asserting that the disputed products are commonly used as 'prasadam' and should be classified accordingly. However, the Tribunal found that the products are commercially manufactured and sold in shops, not exclusively in temples. The common parlance test was deemed inapplicable as the products did not meet the specific religious and distribution criteria associated with 'prasadam'.

4. The applicability of exemptions under Notifications 33/86 and 15/89:
The Tribunal noted that the classification list submitted by the assessee indicated claims for exemptions under Notification 33/86. The Assistant Collector did not provide reasons for denying these exemptions. The Tribunal directed the lower authorities to consider the eligibility of the products for exemptions under Notifications 33/86 and 15/89, which exempt certain sugar products under specific conditions. The duty liability was to be re-determined based on the eligibility for these exemptions.

5. Determination of 'Prasad' or 'Prasadam' as excisable goods:
The Tribunal clarified that 'Prasad' or 'Prasadam' is an offering made in temples and distributed to devotees, carrying religious significance. Such items are not commercially marketed and are not considered 'goods' for excise purposes. The Tribunal concluded that commercially manufactured products sold in shops do not qualify as 'prasadam'. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's definition of 'goods' as items brought to the market for sale, which does not apply to religious offerings. Therefore, 'Prasad' or 'Prasadam' cannot be considered excisable goods under the Central Excise Tariff.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the classification of 'Chironjidana', Ghadi-sakkar, Rewadi, and Gathi/Batasha under sub-heading 1704.90 as sugar confectionery. The appeals by the assessee were rejected, and the appeal by the Department was allowed. The lower authorities were directed to consider the eligibility for exemptions under the relevant notifications and re-determine the duty liability accordingly.

← Previous Next →