2009 (6) TMI 353 - AT - Central Excise

Revenue appeal dismissed due to missing label, impacting duty rates on packaged drinking water

The revenue's appeal was dismissed as the department failed to provide a copy of the label indicating the name 'Webcil,' leading to the lower appellate ... Whether the impugned goods, namely, packaged drinking water, bears a brand name meriting classification under sub-heading 2201.19, or it is unbranded meriting classification under sub-heading 2201.11 under which the goods are chargeable at nil rate of duty as against 16% under the former classification - The lower appellate authority has decided the matter in favour of the respondents holding that the label in this case indicates abbreviated form of the name of respondents – However, the department has not furnished a copy of the label along with the appeal. The matter was adjourned last time giving a direction to the ld. SDR to produce a copy of the label. The ld. SDR has today brought the original file, but nowhere a copy of the label is available. As such, there is no material available with the revenue to substantiate the appeal and hence, we dismiss the appeal The dispute was about the classification of packaged drinking water as branded or unbranded for duty rates. The lower appellate authority ruled in favor of the respondents based on the label indicating the name 'Webcil.' The revenue appealed, but as the department failed to provide a copy of the label, the appeal was dismissed.