9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (7) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of insertion of entry 14F (iii) in the Central Excise Tariff. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise held the product liable to duty as `soap-other sorts' under tariff item No. 15(2). The petitioner-firm's appeals were rejected by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and hence these four revision applications involving a common issue. 2. The case was heard at Bombay on 21-8-1978, by a Bench consisting of two Joint Secretaries and later it was posted before a bigger Bench presided over by the Special Secretary to the Government of India at New Delhi, on 4-4-1979, when Solicitor, Shri Rajan G. Sheth, accompanied by Shri B.V. Rajadhyaksha, Manager of the petitioner-firm, appeared and argued the case. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F so as to include therein specifically shaving creams, whether or not containing soap or detergents and thus it is only with effect from the date of insertion of item 14F that the product in question became excisable because it was nobody's case that item 14F (iii) was carved out of item 15(2) so as to diminish the scope of that item when the description of item 15(2) remains unchanged. 3.4 In this connection, the counsel made the point that the words `known commercially as soap' appearing in the definition part of the tariff entry 15 governs not only sub-item (i) but also sub-item (ii) thereof. 4. In the course of the hearing, the counsel's attention was drawn to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Praka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner-firm have produced several affidavits from well-established traders which are relevant pieces of evidence showing as to how the brush less shaving cream is regarded in trade or commercial parlance so as not to be regarded in the market as "soap". The Department on the other hand had no evidence to show that in commercial parlance the product is bought and sold as soap for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. Government further observe that it is not proper to hold the brush less shaving cream as "soap" just because the cream contained tri-ethanolamine, which the petitioner-firm has submitted acts as a binder and which is not required to be used as an ingredient for soap. The tariff entry 15 of the Central Excise Tariff, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nut and Chocolate Co. Ltd. where it was held that `salted peanuts' and `cashewnuts' could not be considered to be "fruits" or "vegetables". The test posed by the Hon'ble Judge was "..... would a householder when asked to bring home fruit or vegetables for the evening meal bring home salted peanuts, cashewnuts or nuts of any sort? The answer is obviously `no'." 8. On the same reasoning, a householder will not bring home a tube of brushless shaving cream if asked to bring soap. 9. For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 5 to 7 above, the Government hold that the Palmolive shaving cream fell outside the purview of item 15(2) of the Central Excise Tariff at the material time. In this view of the matter, the revision application is allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
