Exemption for papad-like snacks: fryums treated as akin to papad and covered by the notification.

Fryums were analysed by reference to their manufacturing process and end use, and were treated as a dried snack normally consumed only after frying. The exemption entry for papad and similar namkeens was read broadly, with the listed examples treated as illustrative rather than restrictive. On that construction, a snack akin to papad could fall within the exempted description if it answered that class, and the Commissioner's view that fryums were covered by Notification No. 5/99-C.E. was accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product known as fryums was classifiable and marketable as papad or namkeen so as to fall within the exemption under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. dated 28.02.1999.

Analysis: The product was examined with reference to its manufacturing process and end use. It was found to be a dried snack that is normally consumed only after frying and to be akin to papad. The earlier Tribunal view in the assessee's own case, dealing with a similar notification and the words used in the exemption entry, was relied upon to hold that the expression covering papad and namkeens such as bhujia and chabena was broad and that the words used in the entry were illustrative rather than restrictive. On that basis, the finding of the Commissioner that fryums were covered by the exemption was held to be correct.

Conclusion: Fryums were held to fall within the exempted description and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption entry covers papad and similar namkeens, the entry is to be read as illustrative of the described class and a dried snack consumed after frying may qualify for exemption if it answers that description.

---