Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.11 seconds)
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs A.R.S. Company Ltd. And Azam Laminators ... on 30 June, 2006 cites

Commissioner Of C. Excise vs Crane Betal Nut Power Works on 12 April, 2005

The HSN covered betel nuts under heading 0802 and described its use as masticatory. Their product betel nuts were also used as masticatory. Therefore, the product fell under Chapter 8. It was also submitted that the judgment in the case of CCE v. Crane Betel Nut Powder Works delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal were rendered prior to the introduction of Note 3 to the Chapter 8 and so were not relevant to the issue on hand. Moreover, in the present tariff "betel nuts" was specifically mentioned under Chapter 8. It was to be noted that the heading 2106 covered only food preparations not elsewhere specified or included. The betel nuts purchased by the respondents were used as masticator. Their product was therefore masticator. There was no change in the name, character or use of betel nut purchased by the appellants and the betel nuts made and sold by them. The processes involved did not therefore amount to manufacture. Since the betel nut was specifically mentioned in Chapter 8 it could not be covered under Heading 2106. The learned consultant for the respondent stressed the point that the treatments that the betel nuts were subjected to did not alter the classification of the goods as betel nuts in view of the Note 3 to Chapter 8 and that the Gujarat High Court judgment cited precluded classification of betel nuts in CH 2106 since it covered food preparations not elsewhere specified or included and as betel nuts figured in CH 0802. He also stated that their product was different from that of M/s Crane Betel Nut Powder Works in that it did not contain dates or melon seeds.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S J.K. Synthetics Limited vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 December, 1996

17. The respondents had argued that as per the ratio of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics v. UOI , an established classification could not be changed unless fresh facts were brought on record, a process of manufacture was changed, the relevant entry underwent a change or there was a judicial pronouncement which necessitated change of classification. Various changes were made to the entries in the tariff wef 28.02.05. In their Cross objection, the respondents claimed that Chapter Notes 2 and 3 were introduced in Chapter 8 on 28.2.2005 and the revision of classification was sought owing to changes in the Tariff Act. Since the amendment to the act, betel nuts (in various physical forms) were specifically covered under Heading 0802.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 51 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Darshan Hosiery Works vs Union Of India on 11 April, 1980

As per the ratio of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Darshan Hosiery Works v. UOI such food preparations alone would be covered by Chapter Heading 2106 which were "not elsewhere specified or included", whereas the subject product figured in Chapter 8 as betel nuts. The decisions on the subject product cited by revenue were rendered before the item "betel nuts" was enlisted (by name) in a Tariff heading and therefore, the earlier decisions did not apply in the changed legal context. There was no estoppel against the correct classification as held by the apex Court. They were producing betel nut pieces and not powder and were not marketing the same as ready to eat product. The amendment to the tariff with effect from 28.02.05 also introduced new Chapter Notes relevant to the issue on hand. The betel nuts retained the character of dried betel nuts even after subjecting them to various processes to produce the impugned goods. The Port Health Officer, Tuticorin had given a certificate of analysis to the effect that even after addition of ingredients for preservation/maintenance of appearance, the essential character of the betel nuts did not change. The betel nuts were specifically covered by a specific entry in Chapter 8. The impugned goods fell under Chapter sub-heading 0802 90 19. That the betel nut remained betel nut even after it was converted into supari powder as observed by the Tribunal's Bangalore Bench and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh justified the classification of the impugned product under Chapter 8 with effect from 28.2.2005. It was incorrect to consign the goods to the residuary entry under Chapter 21 denying its appropriate parentage.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 24 - Full Document
1