TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal confirms MILK-N-NUT classification as food product, rejects Sugar Confectionery attempt.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Versus SK. INDUSTRIES</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Versus SK. INDUSTRIES - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 401 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Classification of MILK-N-NUT under Central Excise Tariff2. Interpretation of product identification in statutes like Excise Act3. Burden of proof on Revenue to establish product classification as Sugar ConfectioneryClassification of MILK-N-NUT under Central Excise Tariff:The appeal revolved around the classification of MILK-N-NUT by the respondents under Chapter Heading No. 2001.10 of the Central Excise Tariff, while the Revenue sought re-classification under Heading 1704.90 as Sugar Confectionery. The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on a Tribunal case and a Circular, concluding that the product falls under Chapter Heading 2001.10 as a preparation of vegetable, fruits, and nuts. The Revenue argued that the product is known in the market as Sugar confectionery, citing a Supreme Court case for interpreting how products are identified by users. However, the respondents contended that the product is a preparation of coconut, vegetable, and nuts. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide any evidence to support their claim that the product is traded and known as Sugar confectionery, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.Interpretation of product identification in statutes like Excise Act:The Revenue's argument relied on the interpretation of how products are identified by users in statutes like the Excise Act. They cited a Supreme Court case to support their claim that the classification should be based on how the product is known in the market. However, the respondents maintained that the product in question is a preparation of coconut, vegetable, and nuts, emphasizing the ingredients rather than the market perception. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence from the Revenue to substantiate their claim, highlighting the importance of providing proof in such cases to establish the classification of a product under the relevant tariff heading.Burden of proof on Revenue to establish product classification as Sugar Confectionery:The central issue regarding the burden of proof rested on the Revenue to demonstrate that the product in question should be classified as Sugar confectionery. Despite claiming that the product is traded and known as such in the market, the Revenue failed to present any evidence before the adjudicating authority or the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of substantiating evidence, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's arguments and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal. This case underscores the importance of providing concrete evidence to support claims regarding product classification under specific tariff headings, especially when challenging the classification determined by lower authorities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
