9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) under the impugned Order. 2. Though the matter is posted today for hearing the stay application, we take up the appeal itself for hearing as the issue involved has already been settled by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we grant the stay of the entire amount of duty and penalty. 3. Shri S. Madhavan, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that the appellants manufacture Bubble Gum which was classified by them under sub-heading 1704.90; that the period involved in the present matter is from 23-7-97 to 31-5-98; that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Gum Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Madras [1987 (27) E.L.T. 360] has held that the Bubble Gum is different from Chewing Gum and is not classifiable under Tariff Item 1A(1) of the Erstwhile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Gum and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the Dictionary Meaning of Chewing Gum. He also placed reliance on the decision in the case of BPL Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.) wherein it was held that classification of goods depends on true nature of the product and the fact that there is some difference in old and new Tariff Entries would not change the character of the product. 4. Countering the arguments Shri Hitesh Shah, learned JDR submitted that the decision in the case of Prefetti India is not applicable to the facts of the present matter as rival Headings in dispute in that matter were 17.04 and 21.08 of the Central Excise Tariff. There was no dispute about the product within 1704 itself. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Tribunal did not find substance in the submissions of the Revenue and held that Chewing Gum cannot be used to produce bubbles by blowing while Bubble Gum has that use. This is the essential and characteristic difference between the two gums; apart from the difference in the proportion in which different ingredients exists in the two gums. The Tribunal also observed that by using the plural words Chewing Gums under Tariff Item 1A(1) different kinds of Chewing Gums would be covered by the said entry but Bubble Gum is not the same thing as Chewing Gum and it cannot be considered to be covered by the said entry. The Supreme Court on appeal, in the case of CCE, Madras v. Gum Products Pvt. Ltd. confirmed the decision of the Tribunal by obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Products case and following the ratio it upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The learned Chartered Accountant has also mentioned that with effect from 1-6-98 sub-heading 1704.10 has been substituted which reads as under :- Gums, whether or not sugar coated (including Chewing Gum, Bubble Gum and the like). He has submitted that even now the Legislature treats Bubble Gum as different from Chewing Gum as both of them have now been mentioned in the Tariff Heading separately. 6. Following the ratio of the Tribunal s decision and Supreme Court decision in the case of Gum Products we hold that bubble gum manufactured by the appellants at the relevant time was classifiable und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
