1999 (4) TMI 361 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of products under Central Excise Tariff, whether the processes undertaken amount to manufacture, correct sub-heading classification under the CET.

Classification of Products: The appellants' products were held to be classifiable under sub-heading 1601.19 of the Central Excise Tariff, despite the appellants claiming classification under sub-heading 1601.90 initially.

Manufacture Contention: The appellants argued that their processes did not amount to manufacture as they did not change the nature of chicken significantly, citing a Supreme Court case where conversion of pineapple fruit into slices was not considered manufacture. However, the Tribunal found that the processes undertaken transformed chicken into distinct products like Chicken Kabab, Chicken Kofta, etc., thus constituting manufacture.

Classification Under CET: The appellants contended that their products should be classified under Chapter 2 of the CET, but the Tribunal determined that since the products were prepared with additional ingredients and fried, they were not simple chilled or frozen meat but preparations of chicken, hence not classifiable under Chapter 2.

Correct Sub-heading: The appellants argued for classification under sub-heading 1601.90 instead of 1601.19 of the CET, claiming their products were other preparations of meat and not cooked, peeled, or frozen. However, the Tribunal, based on the General Explanatory Notes to the CET, concluded that the products were rightly classified under sub-heading 1601.19 as cooked-preparations of chicken meat intended for sale.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the classification under sub-heading 1601.19 of the Central Excise Tariff, finding that the processes undertaken by the appellants constituted manufacture and the products were correctly classified as cooked-preparations of chicken meat, dismissing the appeal.