1999 (3) TMI 565

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. The appellants challenge the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi who has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 27,33,676/- during the period from 1-5-1990 to 24-7-1991 on vegetable oils used for manufacture of Roshni brand bakery shortening by denial of money credit on this item on the ground that it falls for classification under Headin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... manufacture of Roshni - Sunbeam (bakery shortening). 2. We have heard Shri R. Swaminathan, learned Consultant and Shri H.K. Sharma, learned DR. We find that the appellants had been describing their products only by brand names namely Rath, Sunbeam, Roshni, Panghat and claiming classification of the same as vegetable oils under CET sub-heading 1504.00 which classification was approved regularl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he view that bakery shortening was classifiable under CET 1504.00. Further in terms of the Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, every manufacturer of vanaspati is required to obtain permission from the VOP Directorate. The appellants throughout applied for and obtained permission for manufacture of bakery shortening (Roshni and Sunbeam brands) and copies of the permission were regularly endorsed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X