Tribunal rules 'scented supari' not excisable, citing manufacturing criteria

The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the demand of duty on 'scented supari' for a specific period, ruling that the product was not excisable as it did not undergo a process amounting to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act. Citing a related Supreme Court judgment, it was determined that the activities involved in producing the product did not result in a new and distinct item. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the product was not excisable during the disputed period, setting aside the department's decision and granting relief to the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against demand of duty on 'scented supari' for a specific period - Classification of the product under Central Excise Act - Claim of non-excisability based on 'manufacture' definition - Acceptance of claim by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a related case - Adjudication of show-cause notices by the department - Denial of SSI benefit - Tribunal's decision on excisability of the product.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against a demand of duty on 'scented supari' for a specific period. The product resulted from activities like cracking of betelnut, roasting, coating with oil, and addition of sweetening and flavoring agents. The assessee purchased the product in bulk from M/s. ARR Enterprises, repacked it, and marketed it. The assessee contended that the repacked product was not excisable as per the definition of 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. However, they classified the products under SH 2106.90 under protest in May 1994, which was not accepted by the department. Subsequently, the department issued show-cause notices demanding duty on the product by classifying it under SH 2107.00 and denying SSI benefit.

2. The learned counsel referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a related case involving Crane Betel Nut Powder Works v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tirupathi. The Supreme Court considered whether mechanical crushing of betelnuts followed by sweetening amounted to 'manufacture'. The Supreme Court's judgment highlighted that the process did not result in a new product with a different character and use. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) correctly analyzed the factual and legal situation, leading to the conclusion that the process did not result in a new and distinct product.

3. The learned SDR acknowledged the decision of the apex court. In light of the Supreme Court's ruling, the Tribunal held that the 'scented supari' cleared by the assessee was not excisable during the disputed period. The Tribunal concluded that there was no 'manufacture' in the activity performed by M/s. ARR Enterprises. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment showcases the issues involved, the legal arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal based on the interpretation of relevant legal principles and precedents.

---