1999 (9) TMI 364

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 as "Sugar confectionery (including white chocolate), not containing cocoa other than chewing gum". During the period October, 1989 to March, 1990, the appellants had cleared these three products at nil rate of duty under sub-heading No. 3003.30. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jammu, after taking note of the report of the Chemical Examiner and the nature of the products, their use and marketability held that these products did not satisfy the definition of ayurvedic medicament and were items of sugar confectionery and he confirmed the demand of Rs. 66,592.73. On appeal, Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh, after a detailed discussion of the product in dispute and after referring to the test of common trade parlan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt their case, we are proceeding to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri Ravinder Babu, Departmental Representative. 3. We have carefully considered the matter and had gone through the facts on record. The products in dispute are Huny Herb, Churyum drops and Tazza. The appellants were also engaged in the manufacture of hard boiled candies falling under Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Tariff. These three products under dispute, according to the chemical analysis, were preparation of sugar with some minor ingredients and were in the form of Lozenge. It was alleged that the goods were sugar confectionery and the benefit of exemption available to ayurvedic medicaments had been wrongly availed. 4. The Commissioner, ....