9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the earlier notification. It was also brought to our notice that the 2002 notification was rescinded by notification no.2/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 to convince us that the interpretation placed by Revenue was not tenable. From a reading of the circular dated 25th February 2005, supra, it appears that the exercise of transiting to eight digit code in the tariff was not intended to alter the effective duty structure in any manner. Implementation of this intent was possible only by harmonious reading of the two notifications. From the factual matrix, it would therefore, appear that notification 3/2005-CE excludes goods of upto 20 put up in a unit container and bearing a brand name because that being already covered by the existing no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vegetables juices, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter. 2000-10 Put up in unit containers and bearing a brand name- 16% 2001-90 Others - Nil 3. With effect from 1st March 2005, the entire chapter was recast as part of the exercise of conversion from the six digit code to eight digit code. Thereafter, the said entry moved to 2007 of CETH: 2007 JAMS, FRUIT JELLIES, MARMALADES, FRUIT OR NUT PUREE AND FRUIT OR NUT PASTES, OBTAINED BY COOKING, WHETHER OR NOT CONTAINING ADDED SUGAR OR OTHER SWEETENING MATTER 2007 10 00 - Homogenised preparations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9th December 2006 concurred with the findings and order of the lower authority. Aggrieved by the denial of the exemption notification, appellant is before us for quashing the impugned order. 5. The appellant, as manufacturer of fruit preparations put up in unit containers and bearing a brand name, was eligible for availment of notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1st March 2002 which exempted all goods covered by CETH 2001 10. The said heading was restricted to food preparation put up in a unit container and bearing a brand name with tariff rate of 16% while all other preparation of vegetables, fruits, or nuts, or other part/plant which were not so packed and presented were subject to nil rate of duty or tariff . 6. The conversion to eigh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. It was also brought to our notice that the 2002 notification was rescinded by notification no.2/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 to convince us that the interpretation placed by Revenue was not tenable. 9. Doubtlessly, nil rate of duty for the preparation of other than those put up in a unit container and bearing a brand name could not be subject to levy merely because of a reordering of codes of the chapters in the tariff. A uniform tariff rate had been applied to all goods with the change and a specific exemption notification that gave effect to nil rate of duty was required to ensure a revenue-neutral transition. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of Revenue that the exclusion of item No.9 of notification no.3/2005-CE date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. Even if the contention of the Learned Authorized Representative that notification 6/2002 CE dated 1st March 2002 is invalidated by alteration in the description of the tariff and that the alternative notification 3/2005-CE dated 24-02-2005 specifically excluded Yumsticks which conforms to the description of the exclusion, the continued existence of notification no. 6/2002 is not disputable. The clause supra in the rescinding notification confers immunity to goods which continued to be cleared under that notification. Accordingly, the notice issued to the appellant bereft of legal sustenance and all proceedings thereon are not legal and proper. 14. The decision of the Tribunal in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd vs Collector of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
