Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petitioners are, among other things, manufacturers of confectionery items in their factory situated at Nellikuppam South Arcot District, Tamil Nadu. They held a Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of general confectionery items dutied under item 1-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In their application for Central Excise Licence made under Rule 173(6) of the Central Excise Rules, they have mentioned 'Lozenges' as one of the items manufactured by the petitioners. These 'Lozenges' prepared by the petitioners were being assessed to the Central Excise duty as if they fall under item 1-A of the Schedule to the Act. The petitioners state that they have wrongly included in their application and were also paying mistakenly duty on Lozenges as if these Lozenges are also covered under item 1-A (1) of the Schedule. When the mistake was detected, they filed a petition on 20-10-1973 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pondicherry to delete Lozenges from the list of excisable items mentioned in their application filed under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, and also prayed that they may be permitted not to pay Central Excise duty thereafter. They have further prayed that the duty collected in the past may also be refunded to them. In this petition, they have detailed the items that might come under item 1-A (1) and contended that Lozenges do not fall within the tariff description of any one of these various specified items mentioned in that entry. In support of their contention, the petitioners furnished the views expressed by certain standard books on confectionery and also the description and the specifications given for some of the items by the Indian Standards Institution. By a one line order dated 8-1-1974, the Assistant Collector held that "Lozenges" manufactured by the petitioners will fall under the category of "Candy", which is to be assessed as confectionery under tariff item 1-A (1). This was confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. It may also be mentioned that both the appellate and revisional authorities also did not give any reason for coming to this conclusion except to state that 'Lozenges' is included in the word "Candy" and is assessable to excise duty. It is against these orders, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the assessing authorities holding that 'Lozenges' are excisable under item 1-A (1) and for a mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of the refund application afresh on the basis that 'Lozenges' are not excisable goods. It may be mentioned at this stage that with effect from 1-3-1975, as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, a residuary entry in 68 was introduced so that even if 'Lozenges' do not come under the description mentioned in item-1 (A) (1), it will be now excisable under entry 68 with effect from 1-3-1975. There appears to have been a further amendment sometime in 1978, by which item 1-A (1) itself was deleted but these do not concern us and, therefore, we need not state anything more than to note the amendments.

(ii) Usually candy is defined as light, and brilliant confection made by pulling sugar syrup, boiled to a thick consistency. Lozenges are made of sugar, flavoured with essences and coloured to taste. Usually for the preparation of lozenges finally pulverised sugar, glucose, syrup and a binder, such a Gum Tragnath or Liquid Gelatine is worked up to a dough consistency without the aid of heat, which is rolled flat and then stamped into separate lozenges by cutting. The only difference we see between candy and lozenges is application of heat. Also probably in the case of Candy, the ratio of sucrose to glucose may be higher than in Lozenges.

7. The petitioners had also obtained the views of the Central Food Technological Research Institute. Mysore who in their letter dated 6th February, 1974 have stated.

Usually candy is defined as light and brilliant confection made by pulling sugar syrup, boiled to a thick consistency. Lozenges are made of sugar, flavoured with essences and coloured to taste. Usually for the preparation of lozenges finely pulverised sugar, glucose syrup and a binder such as gum Tragnath or liquid gelatin is worked up to a dough consistency without the aid of heat which is rolled flat and then stamped into separate lozenges by cutting. The only difference we see between candy and lozenges is application of heat. Also probably in the case of candy the ratio of sucrose to glucose may be higher than in lozenges.

10. In the same book relating to the manufacture of gums, we find that in the process of manufacture sugar and glucose are dissolved in water and boiled upto 124°C. The first commodity mentioned in item 1-A is boiled sweets. In the process of manufacture of those sweets, therefore, cooking is involved, coated nuts and fruit kernels are coated candies (vide Encyclopaedia Britannica), Thus, in everyone of these commodities mentioned under item l-A(1), boiling and cooking are essential elements in the process of manufacture. Having regard to the context in which Candies are used in this entry, in order to bring a product within the meaning of "candies", it should be one in the manufacture of which the process of boiling and cooking are also involved. We have already noticed that in the process of manufacture of Lozenges, boiling and cooking are not done. Necessarily, therefore, Lozenges cannot be included in the item '"candy". The description, specification and the process referred to in the Indian Standard Institute's specifications and the view expressed by the Indian Standard Institute in their letter dated 11th October 1974, also clearly show that lozenges cannot be brought under the category of "Candies". It may also be mentioned that in the opinion given by the Indian Standard Institute in their letter dated 11th October, 1974, they have also referred to the understanding of the word "Candies" in England and America. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. wherein the Supreme Court observed that in technical matters like this, the views expressed by the Indian Standard Institution must be preferred. I see from some of the specifications of the Indian Standard Institution produced that the Sectional Committee which decides these matters are composed of eminent persons in trade, industry and Government as also consumers and other experts. Their views therefore deserve acceptance by Court except where there are other strong considerations to the contary. Having regard to all these facts, I am of the opinion that the view expressed by the respondent that lozenges will be included in the description of "candy" cannot be accepted and therefore lozenges are not excisable under entry l-A(1) of the First Schedule to the Act.