9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em 1B of Central Excise Tariff. The Collector upheld his order. Hence this appeal. 2. The appellants have requested for disposal of the appeal on merits. In the Appeal Memorandum and in the written submissions later made, it was claimed that where the goods were sold in bulk containers or where those were sold in the appellants own containers but were not in pre-determined quantities, they had sought classification under TI-68, on the basis of the Trade Notice No. 35/84, dated 15-6-1984 issued by the Jurisdictional Collector. The Assistant Collector had gone against the contents of the Trade Notice. The Assistant Collector had erred in giving a limited interpretation to the word fruit juice in holding that `fruit juice concentrate cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot justify a classification other than that can be arrived at by reading the tariff item. 3. We have carefully considered the various submissions made before us by the Revenue and those made in the written submissions by the Appellants. 4. The Tariff entry of Item No. 1B read as Prepared or preserved foods put up in unit containers and ordinarily intended for sale............ . The issue here is of the interpretation of the term unit containers. The definition of the word unit as given in the Webster New Dictionary is a known determinate quantity by which other quantities of the same kind are measured . The same definition is referred in the letter from the Ministry, dated 23-1-1969 cited by the Ld. DR. The wording there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication under Tariff Item 1B is claimed, the products are shown to be packed in tins or bottles of pre-determined standard weight. Thus, one description says - orange marmalade 1.05 kg tin, 4 kg tin and 500 gms bottle. The details as to the containers are not shown in the case of Annexure-II to the classification list which contains the disputed products. The claim made before both the lower authorities was that the containers was supplied by the buyers and the contents were not in pre-determined quantity. It was further claimed that in the case of one product, namely, orange juice concentrate, 4.1 preserved; the containers were supplied by them but that the contents were not uniform. The Assistant Collector held that the contents should b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of certain types of paper were suggested under a particular tariff item. The Hon ble Court found that the classification suggested by the trade notice was not in consonance with the headings of the various tariff entries and held that the attempt to classify something which does not fall under the classification was not open to the Central Excise Authorities. The Trade Notice before us in this case does not suffer from such a defect. The prime requirement of pre-determine quantity which is the soul of a unit container has been well brought out in the Trade Notice. The assessee was perfectly justified in relying upon the Trade Notice to seek guidance for classifying these products. Both the lower authorities have erred in not interpreti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
