2008 (2) TMI 3 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court clarifies nut classification, dismisses appeals, remands penalty decision

Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa Versus Phil Corporation Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa Versus Phil Corporation Ltd. - 2008 (223) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) Issues Involved:1. Classification of processed nuts under the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Applicability of excise duty on processed nuts.3. Interpretation of legislative provisions and Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) notes.4. Definition and scope of 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act.5. Relevance of previous judicial decisions on similar issues.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Processed Nuts under the Central Excise Tariff Act:The primary issue revolves around the correct classification of processed nuts (cashew nuts, peanuts, almonds) under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The respondent assessee argued that their products should be classified under Chapter 0801.00, which pertains to 'Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons,' and attracts a Nil rate of duty. Conversely, the appellant (Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa) contended that these products fall under Chapter 2001.10, which includes 'Preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants' and are subject to excise duty.2. Applicability of Excise Duty on Processed Nuts:The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, in his Order-in-Original, classified the goods under Chapter 2001.10, making them chargeable to duty. This decision was challenged by the respondent assessee, and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the goods are not assessable to duty. The Supreme Court, however, overturned the Tribunal's decision, reinstating the Commissioner's order, thereby confirming the applicability of excise duty on the processed nuts.3. Interpretation of Legislative Provisions and HSN Notes:The Supreme Court referred to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) notes to interpret the legislative provisions. The HSN notes to Chapter 20 explicitly include dry-roasted, oil-roasted, or fat-roasted nuts, which are prepared or preserved by processes other than merely chilling, freezing, or provisional preservation. The Court emphasized that HSN is a reliable guide for resolving classification disputes and noted that the products in question are explicitly included in Chapter 20 and excluded from Chapter 8.4. Definition and Scope of 'Manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act:The Court examined Section 2(f)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, which defines 'manufacture' to include any process specified in the chapter notes of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 20 states that labeling, relabeling of containers, and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer amounts to 'manufacture.' The Court concluded that the respondent's processes, including oil roasting and packing in branded retail containers, fall under this definition, making the products liable to excise duty.5. Relevance of Previous Judicial Decisions:The Court referred to several precedents, including the judgment in Amrit Agro Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad, which classified roasted peanuts under Chapter 20. It also cited the judgment in Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., which highlighted the relevance of HSN for tariff classification. Additionally, the Court discussed the Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., which clarified the scope of 'manufacture' under Section 2(f). However, the Court noted that this judgment was rendered before the enactment of Section 2(f)(ii) and thus was not applicable to the present case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellant (Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa), set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and restored the Commissioner's order, classifying the processed nuts under Chapter 2001.10 and making them chargeable to excise duty. The Court emphasized the importance of aligning with legislative intent and the HSN notes for accurate classification and interpretation of excise laws. The appeals filed by M/s Coco Dry Fruits (India) Ltd. against the Revenue were dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's orders, but the question of penalty and interest was remanded to the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, for adjudication. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.