2017 (10) TMI 1182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the product "Cheeselings" and "Musst Bites" are "Namkeen" and the same is covered under entry no. 29 of notification 3/2006-CE. She submits that the adjudicating authority denied the exemption only on the ground that the product in question are not fried product, therefore it cannot be called as "Namkeen". She submits that to qualify a product as "Namkeen" it is not necessary that it should be fried. By any method if the product is prepared and consumed by human as "Namkeen" it will fall under the "Namkeen". She further submits that both the products are sold as "Namkeen" which is declared on the package, therefore in common parlance, the product is sold and bought as "Namkeen". She alternati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by entry no. 29 it is exempted from payment of duty. In support she placed reliance on the judgment of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (331) ELT 119 (Tri-Del). She submits that the appellant alternatively claimed the cenvat credit in respect of the input used in the manufacture of the goods in question which were amounted to `42 lakhs before the adjudicating authority but the same was denied only on the ground that the notification 3/2006 was wrongly availed. She further submits that the rate of abatement was also wrongly applied at the rate of 37% under sr. No. 22 of the Notification 2/06-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2006 whereas the goods falling under chapter sub-heading 2106 9099 was specified under Sr. No. 24 wherein the abatement rate i....