Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2008 (9) TMI 636

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....riff Act, 1985 (CETA) respectively thus modifying the impugned order which classified both products under CSH 2108.99, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents. Original authority had decided the classification after examining the process of production of the impugned goods. She demanded the duty due of Rs. 11,07,641/- for the period 1-4-02 to 31-1-03 and interest for the delay and allowed Modvat credit on inputs used. As for My Coffee, the same is produced by mixing instant coffee powder, milk powder and sugar. She relied on the reasoning followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Ludhiana in his OIA No. 113/CE/APPL/LDH/03, dated 31-3-03 in respect of M/s. Nestle India Ltd. He had relied on the decision of the Tribunal in c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;In the cross-objections filed, the respondent is aggrieved that the Commissioner (A) did not consider their plea that there was no manufacturing process involved in preparation of 'My Coffee' or 'My Tea'. He had also not considered if the impugned goods were edible preparations which was a pre-requisite to classify the products as decided in the impugned order. 4. The ld. SDR relies on the following case law in support of the Revenue's appeal. (a)     Nestle India Ltd. v. CCE, Ludhiana, 2004 (169) E.L.T. 22 (Tri.-Del.) (b)     Nestle India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 850 (Tri.) The ratio of these decisions is to the effect that preparations simi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iff are reproduced below : 21.01 : Extracts, essences and concentrates, of coffee or tea, and preparations with a basis of these products or with a basis of coffee or tea; roasted chicory and other roasted coffee substitutes, and extracts, essences and concentrates thereof. 2101.10 : Extracts, essences and concentrates, of coffee and preparations with a basis of these extracts, essences or concentrates or with a basis of coffee. 2101.20 : Extracts, essences and concentrates, of coffee and preparations with a basis of these extracts, essences or concentrates or with a basis of coffee. 2108.99 : Others. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) held that coffee included coffee extracts also. Therefore,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... unless the department can establish that the goods in question can, by no conceivable process of reasoning, be bought under any of the specific items mentioned in the tariff, resort cannot be had to be residuary item;" Following the above decision the Tribunal had held in the Nestle India Ltd. case (supra), that the preparations consisting of coffee extract were covered by the entry 2101.10. Therefore, the specific entry had to be preferred to residuary entry. Accordingly, the classification of the preparation of coffee extract examined in the said decision was held to be CSH 2101.10. 7. In the instant case, the Heading 21.01 in its sub-headings 10 and 20 covered preparations with a basis of coffee and tea respectively. Therefor....