TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (3) TMI 187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firmed the classification of the said product under sub-heading No. 2107.91 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tariff'). Heading No. 21.07 covers 'edible preparations not elsewhere specified or included'. The Order-in-Appeal, dated 31-5-1994 was issued following the decision in the above order dated 30-5-1994. 2. The matter was heard on 19-9-1995 when Shri S.K. Kohli, Advocate appeared for the appellants. Revenue was represented by Shri Vijay Singh, SDR. 3. The ld. Advocate stated that their product was a flavoured pan chatni in which sugar content was about 95 to 97%, and flavours were from 3 to 5%. Their price was Rs. 23.40 for 200 gms. The product had no other use and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is placed in the pan. The pan leaf is prepared with katha, chuna, betel nut, saunf, etc., for chewing. Chewing tobacco is added when pan with tobacco is demanded. 'Gulkand' is placed in the pan when sweet pan is demanded. The product of the appellants 'Pan Chatni' is used when sweetened pan is required by the customer. It contains sugar syrup (95 to 97%), silver leaves, flavours, etc. Sugar syrup is generally prepared by dissolving sugar in water at a certain temperature with the addition of certain chemicals to remove odours and colour and for preservation. It is mentioned as excisable goods under sub-heading No. 1702.30 of the Tariff. The finished product was packed under the brand names - `Gopal Dil Khush' and 'Gopal Rachna'. Now, main ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifferent dishes, puddings, etc. The goods under consideration in the present proceedings are not like the sauce and the ketchup, as not having the essence of the characteristics of an accompaniment to the eatables with regard to the sum and substance of the nature of the raw materials, way of preparation, usage, packing and commercial understanding. The commercial understanding in the present context will be the understanding by the particular trade and the consumer where sauce and ketchup known and traded and consumed on the one hand, and the product under consideration is known and traded and consumed on the other. 7. In the case of M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and Others v. CCE - 1993 AIR SCW 1782, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had obs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les. The product in question goes with the pan. Excisability is not dependent on the label which a manufacturer may give to his wares. It is a well settled principle that excisability of an item to tax or tax deduction can hardly be made to depend on the label given to it by the parties. Simply because the manufacturer had named his product as `Pan Chatni' it does not become a Chatni as commonly understood. Any reference to 'chatni' brings to mind such indigenous eatables as pakoras, samosas, idli, dosa, dhokla, alu tikki, etc. It is a spicy preparation for relishing the eatables and is generally made of fruits, vegetables, herbs, pepper and other masalas. The product before us is not associated with eatables. Reference to chatni, chatni pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the purposes of Heading No. 21.03 of the Tariff. 12. In the case of Novapan India Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that exemption being in the nature of exception, was to be construed strictly at the stage of determination whether assessee falls within its terms or not and in case of doubt, or ambiguity, benefit of it must go to the State. Further, exemption notification could not change the classification of the goods from one entry to another as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Eskayef Ltd. v. CCE - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 649 (SC). 13. Sub-heading No. 2107.91 is wide enough to cover such a product. Tariff Heading No. 2107 as before the 1995 Budget is extracted below ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proval of the list of goods by the proper officer. The approval inter alia includes rate of duty leviable on each such goods. Sub-rule (5) reads : "(5) When the dispute about the rate of duty has been finalised or for any other reasons affecting rate or rates of duty, a modification of the rate or rates of duty is necessitated, the proper officer shall make such modification and inform the assessee accordingly." It may be noted that before revising his order dated March 5, 1976, the Assistant Collector gave a notice to the appellant stating the grounds on which he proposed to revise and modify his earlier order. The decision cited by Sri Uttam Reddy in support of this submission viz., Collector of Central Excise v. Pallappa (1964....