Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Mohan Breweries And Distilleries ... vs Cc, Chennai on 12 October, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
C/187/2002
(Arising out of Order in Appeal C.Cus No. 11/2002 dated 15.01.02 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
_________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the :
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? ____________________________________________________________
M/s. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd. : Appellant
Vs.
CC, Chennai : Respondent
Appearance Shri T. Ramesh, Adv., for the appellants Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the respondents CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 12.10.2010 Date of decision : 12.10.2010 ORDER No._____________ Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The issue in dispute in this appeal is the eligibility of the Fully Automatic Labelling Machine imported by the appellants herein to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.125/86 dated 17.02.86.
2. We have heard both sides. At the time of import of the machine the appellants were in the business of manufacture of beer and Indian made foreign liquor. They had imported the machinery for their proposed industry for processing fruit syrups, juices, jams and pickles. However, at the time of import of the articles in question, the appellants had not commenced any manufacture of food articles and the machine imported was to be used for affixing labels on beer bottles. Since the benefit of Notification is available to the machinery used in the food processing industry, and since beer is not an article of food, as held by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Kalyani Breweries Ltd. Vs. CC, Calcutta 2001 (134) ELT 12 (S.C), the authorities below have rightly rejected the benefit of notification. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT BB 3