2016 (8) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd December 2005. 2. The appellant, M/s Remedy Health Products Pvt Ltd, manufactures Yumsticks for M/s Dabur India Ltd claimed to be classifiable under CETH 2000-10 till 28th February 2005 and were being cleared at nil rate of duty as per notification no. 6/2002-CE, dated 1st March 2002. The description for the purpose of rate of duty was preparation of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants including jams, fruit jellies, marmalades, fruit or nut puree and fruit or nut pastes, fruit juices and vegetables juices, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter. 2000-10 Put up in unit containers and bearing a brand name- 16% 2001-90 Others          ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules,2002. The first appellate authority, Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals-II) Hyderabad vide order no.56/2006(H-IV) CE dated 29th December 2006 concurred with the findings and order of the lower authority. Aggrieved by the denial of the exemption notification, appellant is before us for quashing the impugned order. 5. The appellant, as manufacturer of fruit preparations put up in unit containers and bearing a brand name, was eligible for availment of notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1st March 2002 which exempted all goods covered by CETH 2001 10. The said heading was restricted to food preparation put up in a unit container and bearing a brand name with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ariff as notification No. 6/2002-CE was related to goods packed and presented in the manner described in the tariff; hence the contention of the appellant that the 2005 notification supplemented the earlier notification. It was also brought to our notice that the 2002 notification was rescinded by notification no.2/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 to convince us that the interpretation placed by Revenue was not tenable. 9. Doubtlessly, nil rate of duty for the preparation of other than those put up in a unit container and bearing a brand name could not be subject to levy merely because of a reordering of codes of the chapters in the tariff. A uniform tariff rate had been applied to all goods with the change and a specific exemption notificat....