9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under : "20.01 Preparation of vegetables, fruits, nuts other parts of plants including jams, fruit jelly, marmalades fruit or nut puree or nut pastes, fruit juices and vegetable juices, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, Pineapple Juice. 2001.10 Put up in unit containers and bearing a brand name (emphasis added) - 16% 2001.90 Others - NIL 21.08 Edible preparation, not elsewhere specified or included, Flavored Sugar Syrups." 2108.91 ………Not bearing a brand name (emphasis added) - NIL 2108.99 Others - 16%" Thus classification and rate of duty depend upon whether the goods are branded or not. 2. Appellant pack and clear the goods for sale in bottles bearing their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... criterion in the Tariff is clear and unambiguous. Classification depends on whether goods are branded or not. She has submitted that it is not in dispute that the appellant's 'brand name' is 'Nirula's'. It is also clear from the impugned order itself that packages in question did not mention the brand name, because the order states "cleared in packages mentioning......... except the brand name 'Nirula's". It is the learned Counsel's submission that the finding regarding classification is clearly contrary to facts noted in the order itself and the order is required to be set aside and classification of the goods under the correct entry for other goods i.e. goods without brand name should be accepted. The learned Counsel for the appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at of Pepsi Foods Ltd. decided by this Tribunal. In that case, the brand name of M/s. Frito Lay India was "LAY'S". Some goods were packed and cleared with brand name. Others were cleared in packages on which name 'M/s. Frito Lay India' was printed. This Tribunal held that packages which did not bear brand name "LAY'S" cannot be classified in the heading for goods bearing 'brand name'. Appellant's case remains squarely covered by this decision. The decision in Tarai Food is not attracted to the present case inasmuch as that decision was rendered taking into account other factors like logo, the way in which the goods were described on packages etc. 7. In view of what is stated above, we hold that the impugned order is clearly contrary t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
