9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts giving rise to the present appeal may briefly be stated as under: 3.The respondents M/s. Tarai Foods Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of vegetable preparation i.e. French Fries and Frozen foods. They had been using two types of packings for the sale of their product. First packing carried the name "Inland Valley" alongwith other details while the second packing bore all other details except the words "Inland Valley". They classified their first packing under sub-heading No. 2001.10 and cleared the same from the factory by paying duty at the rate of 8% as prescribed in that sub-heading. But the second packing had been classified by them under sub-heading 2001.90 and cleared at nil rate of duty. They were served with two show cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondents and quashed the duty demand. 6.The learned JDR has assailed the validity of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the definition of the expression "brand name" as given in Chapter Note of the Chapter 20 of the CETA had been misinterpreted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and that the clearances of the product. "French Fries" in the second type of packings, made by the respondents were also covered by sub-heading 2001.10 of the CETA. 7.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that since the second type of packings in which the product had been cleared by the respondents did not bear the brand name "Inland valley" were covered only under sub-heading 2001.90 of the CETA wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Foods Ltd." and other details had been mentioned. The second type of packings weighing 1 Kg. carried their words : "Quick Frozen French Fries Tarai Goods Ltd." The plea of the respondents is that "Inland Valley" is their trade and this trade name had been mentioned by them only on first type of packing and as such their second type of packings did not fall within the ambit of sub-heading 2001.10 of the CETA. But their this plea is only misconceived and not liable to be accepted. In fact, the second type of packings weighing 1 Kg. which too can be termed as "put up in unit container" carried all other details as given in the first type of packings, except the words "Inland valley", also falls under that sub-heading 2001.10 of CETA, keep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch provides nil rate of duty, relied upon by the respondents for the clearances made in the second type of packings is, in fact not at all available to them as this sub-heading only covers clearances, other than those made in a unit containers and did not bear any brand name. But here the clearances of the product made by the respondents using the second type of packings squarely fall under sub-heading 2001.10 of the CETA being put up in a unit container and carried the brand name as defined in Chapter 20 of the CETA. The wording of this sub-heading has to be accepted and interpreted in a manner as it is without adding or substracting any word therefrom. The wording has not to be interpreted so as to held the assessee/manufacturer in evadin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
