2002 (4) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tariff Act as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order. 2. Though the matter is posted today for hearing the stay application, we take up the appeal itself for hearing as the issue involved has already been settled by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we grant the stay of the entire amount of duty and penalty. 3. Shri S. Madhavan, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that the appellants manufacture Bubble Gum which was classified by them under sub-heading 1704.90; that the period involved in the present matter is from 23-7-97 to 31-5-98; that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Gum Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Madras [1987 (27) E.L.T. 360] has held that the Bubble Gum is different from Chewing Gum and is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fferent item in the market and is not the same as Chewing Gum and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the Dictionary Meaning of Chewing Gum. He also placed reliance on the decision in the case of BPL Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.) wherein it was held that classification of goods depends on true nature of the product and the fact that there is some difference in old and new Tariff Entries would not change the character of the product. 4. Countering the arguments Shri Hitesh Shah, learned JDR submitted that the decision in the case of Prefetti India is not applicable to the facts of the present matter as rival Headings in dispute in that matter were 17.04 and 21.08 of the Central Excise Tariff....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thing but Chewing Gum. The Tribunal did not find substance in the submissions of the Revenue and held that Chewing Gum cannot be used to produce bubbles by blowing while Bubble Gum has that use. This is the essential and characteristic difference between the two gums; apart from the difference in the proportion in which different ingredients exists in the two gums. The Tribunal also observed that by using the plural words Chewing Gums under Tariff Item 1A(1) different kinds of Chewing Gums would be covered by the said entry but Bubble Gum is not the same thing as Chewing Gum and it cannot be considered to be covered by the said entry. The Supreme Court on appeal, in the case of CCE, Madras v. Gum Products Pvt. Ltd. confirmed the decision of....