9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Food colours manufactured by M/s. Roha Dye Chem Pvl. Ltd. (respondents to the present appeal) be classified under Heading No. 3204.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Act No. 5 of 1986), dismissing the claim of the respondents that the goods were classifiable under Heading No. 2107.99. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) ruled that the goods were classifiable under Heading No. 21.07. 2. We have heard Smt. Vijay Zutshi and Shri L.C. Chakraborty, Departmental Representatives for the appellant-Collector and Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate, for the respondents. 3. The exact nature of the goods is not available in the record but there is no dispute that the goods are food colours. Nor is there any dispute that they a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther 60% 3204.30 - Synthetic organic products of a kind used as fluorescent brightening agents as luminophores 35% 3204.90 -Other 35% 5. It was contended for the appellant that the decision of this Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Thane v. M/s. Anand Dyes Co. (Appeal No. E. 1654/85-C disposed of by Order No. 129/86-C, dated 7.3.1986) relied on by the Collector was rendered in the context of the Central Excise Schedule as it stood prior to the coming into force the Central Excise Act, 1985, the competing items being Item Nos. 14D and 68 of the Schedule. The Schedule to the 1985 Act was far more detailed and hence the classification would have to be decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision in the Anand Dyes case (supra) and the Supreme Court judgment in the S.N. Brothers case. It was submitted that food colours were different from synthetic organic dyes and colours. As against the erstwhile residuary entry Item No. 68, in the present Tariff Schedule the residuary headings were to be found scattered throughout the Schedule and food colours being edible preparations were more correctly classifiable under Chapter 21 than Chapter 32. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. The Tribunal s decision in the case of Anand Dyes (supra) was with reference to the entries in the erstwhile tariff schedule and can have no direct relevance or application in construing entries in the present tariff schedule. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... true that the entries in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, are not in pari materia with the entries in the erstwhile tariff schedule, the question would still be relevant whether food colours are edible preparations. If they are intended to import colour to food preparations, it goes without saying that they must be edible and we have the authoritative observation of the Supreme Court in the S.N. Brothers case that it cannot be gainsaid that food colours and syrup essences are edible goods whereas dyes and colours and composition thereof and scents and perfumes as specified in Entries Nos. 10 and 37 of the List do not seem prima facie to connote that they are edible goods. The Court in a later part of the judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court s observations in the S.N. Brothers case were to be applied to the present case. On the other hand, Ch. Note 5 to Chapter 21 shows that Heading No. 21.07 inter alia includes flavouring powders for making beverages, whether or not sweetened. The said Note 5 is not an exhaustive one but an inclusive one and if flavouring powders for making beverages are included in Heading No. 21.07, we do not see any reason why food colours should not also be deemed to be covered by the said heading. Of course, Ch. Note 5(j) is a specific one and does not cover the present food colours. The respondents contention that the goods are akin to coloured syrups is not tenable because the goods are powders. 13. As between the two Headings 2107.99 and 320 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
