9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of food to attract classification under Chapter 19 of the CETA, 1985." 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various products of Brown & Polson Corn Flour. They packed these items in different packs and claimed classification thereof under Chapter sub-heading 1909.19. They stated that the goods are re-packed from duty paid Maize Starch without any modification and, therefore, they are exempted from payment of further duty. The Assistant Collector approved the classification of the product under Chapter sub-heading 1901.19. Appellants filed a Writ in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court directed the respondents to issue show cause notice within on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector had informed the Assistant Collector that in pursuance of a Tariff Conference held at Nagpur on 16th and 17th November, 1989, it was decided that Corn Flour should be treated as non-excisable since there was no addition of any other material to the duty paid maize starch. After careful consideration of the submissions made, the learned Collector decided the issue in favour of the assessees. Against that the Department has come up in appeal on the ground that the Collector (Appeals) has relied on his predecessor's Order No. 340/77, dated 19-4-1977 that this reliance is misplaced inasmuch as the earlier order was relating to Tariff Item 1B of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and not to the present Tariff. 3. Shri R.S. Sangia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acture. In support of this contention, they cited and relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Lakaki Works (P) Ltd. - [1988 (37) E.L.T. 392]. They submitted that similar view was further taken by the Tribunal in the case of Garware Paints Limited v. Collector of Central Excise - [1992 (62) E.L.T. 178] in which this Tribunal observed that repacking of goods after clearance into a smaller packings was not chargeable to duty on the price at which they are sold after repacking into smaller packings as no manufacturing activity had taken place. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that their case is fully covered by these two decisions and similar other decisions of the Tribunal and sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
