2017 (11) TMI 1320 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - ice-cream mix - classified under CETH 2108.91 or under CETH 1901.99? - Held that - the product is to be classified under Chapter 4 only - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of ice-cream mix products under CETH 2108.91 or CETH 1901.99.

Analysis:
The appeals revolve around the classification of ice-cream mix products manufactured and cleared by the appellants. The dispute arose when the Revenue contended that the product, being in unit containers, should be classified under CETH 1901.99 instead of the appellant's classification under CETH 2108.91 as ice-cream powder mix. The lower authority upheld the Revenue's view, classifying the products under 1901.19.

The appellant's counsel argued against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, citing a similar case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Foods Vs. CCE, Meerut, where the Court classified a similar product under CETH 0404.90. The counsel also highlighted a later order by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appellant's favor, following the Supreme Court's decision in Amrit Foods. The counsel emphasized that no appeal was filed against this order.

On the other hand, the Revenue's representative contended that the decision in Amrit Foods could not be directly applied to the present case as the disputed product was ice-cream mix, not milk shake mix or soft serve mix.

In response, the appellant's counsel argued that the product in question could also be referred to as soft serve mix and that the crux of the matter was whether the product should be considered a dairy product, being primarily milk-based, and therefore correctly classified under Chapter 4.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the ingredients of the disputed product were similar to those discussed in the Amrit Foods case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Considering that the Revenue had followed the Supreme Court's decision in Amrit Foods in a previous case involving the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that a different view could not be taken for the same product. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, providing any consequential relief as per the law.