1996 (3) TMI 205 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of crushed fruits under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 33/83 for captive consumption.
3. Marketability of crushed fruits treated with preservatives.
4. Compliance with the description "Edible fruit and nuts" under Chapter 8.
5. Requirement of a unit container for classification.

Analysis:
1. The appellants contested the order classifying crushed fruits under sub-heading 0801.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. They argued that the fruits, treated with sodium metabisulphate, were not in a marketable condition if sold to consumers. They claimed that the products were not goods as they needed further processing to become consumable items like jam or pickle.

2. The appellants also disputed the classification under Chapter 8, asserting that the crushed fruits did not meet the description of "Edible fruit and nuts." They contended that the products, preserved with chemicals, were not fit for consumption without additional processing. They further argued that the containers used for transportation did not meet the criteria of a unit container as required by the Central Excise Tariff Act.

3. The Tribunal noted that marketability is a crucial factor for classifying goods. The appellants challenged the revenue's assertion that the products were marketable, emphasizing that the items were not being sold or exported as claimed. The Tribunal agreed that factual verification was necessary to determine the marketability of the products and remanded the matter for further consideration.

4. Regarding the classification under Chapter 8, the Tribunal highlighted the need to satisfy the description "Edible fruit and nuts." The appellants' argument that the crushed fruits, treated with preservatives, did not qualify as edible fruit raised a significant classification issue. The Tribunal deemed it essential to verify this claim with evidence and remanded the case for a fresh adjudication.

5. The Tribunal emphasized the requirement for a unit container designed to hold a pre-determined quantity or number for classification. The dispute over whether the containers used for transportation met this criterion needed factual examination. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed a de novo adjudication to address the classification issues comprehensively.