Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of C. Ex. vs Shalimar Super Foods on 22 November, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007(210)ELT695(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
1. The Revenue assails the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has accepted the contention of the respondents/assessees that preparations for meat articles in loose pack manufactured by them, fell for classification under C.E.T. sub-heading 1601.90 at nil rate of duty, rejecting the contention of the Revenue that the goods were put up in unit containers and hence merited classification under C.E.T. subheading 1601.10 attracting duty at the rate of 8% ad valorem.
2. None appears for the respondents; hence we heard learned S.D.R. and perused the records.
3. We find that the goods are supplied in plastic bags showing brand name of the respondents. The quantity is not pre-printed on the bags which are also not sealed, as seen from the averment in the show cause notice and the finding of the authorities below. The adjudicating authority had classified the goods under C.E.T. sub-heading 1601.10 solely on the ground that the plastic bags were nothing but unit containers for the reason that a pre-determined quantity was packed in the plastic bags. However, unit container, as per the definitions contained in several dictionaries, is a container containing pre-determined uniform quantities of contents whereas the items cleared by the respondents were not of uniform quantities. For this reason, the goods in question which were cleared in plastic bags not sealed and not containing pre-printed quantities thereon, cannot be treated as unit containers for the purpose of classification of meat articles packed therein under C.E.T. sub-heading 1601.10.
4. In the light of the above, we hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly arrived at the classification of the goods in question under C.E.T. subheading 1601.90, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
(Pronounced in Court)