TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Appeals allowed for product classification review. Penalties imposed under Section 11AC.</h1> The appeals were allowed as remand for re-determination of product classification under Chapter 2 or Chapter 16 by the original authority. Duty demands ... Manufacture - Meat - Brand name - Meat preparations - Packing Issues Involved:1. Classification of products under the Central Excise Tariff.2. Determination of duty demands.3. Applicability of penalties and confiscation.4. Consideration of the brand name 'COSTA' and its impact on classification.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Products:The core issue revolves around the classification of various meat products. The disputed Chapter Headings are 0201.00, 1601.10, and 1601.90. The products include items like Cocktail sausages, Frankfurters, Luncheon Meat, Corned Beef, and others. The process involves cleaning, chopping, freezing, and adding ingredients like spices and oil. The products are marketed in frozen conditions in poly pouches and need to be cooked before consumption.2. Determination of Duty Demands:The appeals involve duty demands confirmed by the Commissioner under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The duty demands are based on the classification of products under Heading 1601.10. The products are either classified under Chapter 2 or Chapter 16, depending on the extent of treatment. If classified under Chapter 2, no further sub-classification is needed. For Chapter 16, the classification depends on whether the products are 'put up in unit containers' and 'bearing a brand name.'3. Applicability of Penalties and Confiscation:Penalties were imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q for contravening various provisions of the Central Excise Rules. The goods valued at Rs. 98,128/- were confiscated and ordered to be redeemed on a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The issue of penalties is kept open and will be re-determined based on the quantum of demands after reclassification.4. Consideration of the Brand Name 'COSTA':The mark 'COSTA' was initially on the packages and later on the price stickers. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that 'COSTA' is a house mark and not a brand name specific to the products. The Supreme Court's judgment in the case of M/s. Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. was relied upon, which distinguished between a house mark and a product-specific brand name. The mark 'COSTA' being used on various products, including non-exigible ones, and the name and address of the manufacturer being printed on the pouches, served as an emblem of the manufacturer, not as a trade-specific mark.Conclusion:The appeals are allowed as remand. The classification of the products under Chapter 2 or Chapter 16 is to be re-determined by the original authority. The duty demands and penalties will be re-assessed based on the reclassification. The orders of CCE (Appeals) regarding the applicability of the mark 'COSTA' are confirmed, recognizing it as a house mark and not a product-specific brand name.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
