Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.12 seconds)The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
The Central Excise Act, 1944
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
M/S A.P. Products vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 9 July, 2007
5. We have gone through the appeal paper book, series of
submissions made by adversaries in writing including compilation of
case laws and also on the Tariff Items as well as description available
in the Chapter Note of CETA and HSN. During course of hearing of the
appeal learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant-
Department Mr. Mahesh Yashwant Patil submitted that Tariff Item No.
09109100 that covers "mixtures" items were mainly of generic nature
while "Mixed Condiments" 21039040 is more specific. While admitting
that "retention of essential character" or its loss would take the item
into a different form/ taste or flavour, he relied on the statement of
production in-charge of Respondent-Assessee Mr. Prashant Ravindra
Nerkar to justify that with such grinding, mixing and blending of
various ingredients in certain proportion (of Chapter 04, 07, 08, ... 33
etc.) during the manufacturing process, the new product that
emerged, developed its own character and taste which is different in
taste and aroma. He further placed his reliance on the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of A.P. Products Vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2007) 214 ELT 845 (SC) in which
E/86772/2021
7
Hon'ble Apex Court had ruled that after grinding and mixing
ingredients loose their own identity/character and a new product
separately known to the commercial world comes into existence
(Review committee also placed it reliance on the said decision) and
therefore, he pleaded for acceptance of there appeal by way of setting
aside the order passed by the Principal Commissioner.
6.1 Per contra, learned Counsel for the Assessee-Respondent Mr.
Prakash Shah argued at length in support of Respondent's claims and
in appreciation of the order passed by the Principal Commissioner and
while analysing relevant provisions of CETA, 1985 and HSN, he wanted
to reiterate sub-para (e) of the Heading 0910 and para 3 of the
Supplementary Note in order to establish that other favouring
substance not falling in this Chapter 0910 would take it away from the
said Chapter, provided when such spices which are commonly known
as masalas, as provided in Supplementary Note 3 of Chapter 9, does
not retain the essential character spices (masala), which are typical to
CETA 1985, as spices are of Indian Origin and not available in the HSN.
Stadfast Paper Mills vs D.R. Kohli, Former Collector Of Central ... on 22 July, 1970
6.2 His further submission on non-acceptance of subsequent
observation report and on admissibility of chemical examination report
was that such an observation was specifically sought and tendered
which can't be accepted for the reason that it was not a conformity
test since the Examiner has used the word "may" contain "Mixed
Condiments and Mixed Seasoning" and placing reliance on the decision
of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Stadfast Paper Mills Vs.
Dr. Kohli, Former Collr. Of Cen. Ex., Baroda and Others reported in
E/86772/2021
8
1983 (12) ELT 744 (Guj.), he argued that it is none of the functions of
the Chemists to give an opinion as to whether the goods in question
would be covered by a particular item of the Tariff. The said decision
is stated to be consistently followed by this Tribunal in several cases
even now viz.
Guest Keen Williams Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 19 February, 1987
Guest Keen Williams Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs,
Calcutta, [1987 (29) ELT 68 (Tribunal)] affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in [1997 (95) ELT A144 (S.C.)]
M/S. Eastern Condiments Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Madurai on 11 June, 2015
(i) Eastern Condiments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise, Madurai, [2016 (340) ELT 325]