TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 606
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the goods imported by them are raw materials (mixtures of Odoriferous substances) used in industry and fundamentally different from finished compound alcoholic preparations and hence, denial of the benefit of the Notification is not justified. He further submits that the imported goods are tobacco specific raw materials classifiable under CTH 3302 which is used as raw materials only for the tobacco industry and the word 'Tab' denotes 'Tobacco'. He further submits that the purchase order dated 10.06.2010 placed before the authorities was from M/s. Godfrey Phillips and it is an admitted fact that they are exclusively manufactures of tobacco. Relies on the decision in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs: 2025 (34) CENTAX 174 (Tri.-Mad.). 3.1. Further relying on the decision in the case of Associated Cement Company Ltd. vs. State of MP 2004 (168) ELT 151 (S.C.) claims that the terms in fiscal statues must be interpreted in the sense in which it is understood in the common parlance. He also submits that the reliance placed on the appellant's own decision in the case of Givuada....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als) upholds the above order by observing as follows: "4. ..............However here I have to add that the impugned goods i.e. Tab. Mapelein is flavours compound and not figuring in the above order of the Hon'ble CESTAT. However, the CESTAT has decided the issue on the flavours compound which are sold to the beverages industries as well as other industries. The impugned goods in the instant case fall in the category of not sold to the beverages industry. In view of the above it can be easily concluded that flavour compound imported by the appellants fall under CTH 3302 and exemption notification no. 21/2002 - Cus. dated 01.03.2002 is not available. 4.1 From the above it is very clear that the Hon'ble CESTAT has concluded that flavour compound is also CAPs which is used in the beverages for which exemption notification is not available. However, the Hon'ble CESTAT in its judgment averred that the authority/ Commissioner has to arrive at the conclusion that flavour compounds not sold to the beverage manufacturers are also 'of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages'. From the impugned order I find that the lower authority was not able to re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant's own case to reject the benefit of the exemption notification. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.1503 - 1507/2009 dated 11.12.2009 [2010 (261) ELT 975 (Tri.-Bang.)] observed as follows: "8. The issue to be decided is whether the impugned goods of CSH 3302.10 are compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages, of an alcoholic strength by volume exceeding 0.5 per cent determined at 20 degrees centigrade. There is no dispute that the impugned goods fall under CSH 3302.10 of the Customs Tariff. The expression compound alcoholic preparations of Sl. No. 119 is not defined in the notification or the tariff. As rightly argued by the Revenue, CAPs have to be alcoholic preparations which (1) are compound, (2) have an alcohol content exceeding 0.5% volume, and (3) contain odoriferous substances but not all of the flavoring ingredients in a beverage. 8.1 The appellants' stand is that the goods are not compound alcoholic preparations of CH 33.02 used for the manufacture of beverages. We find that it is undisputed that the goods are used for the manufacture of beverages. xxx 9. ...................We find that the goods cov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of beverages, it is not established that they are of a kind used for manufacture of beverages and this issue was remanded to examine and categorically find if these are used for manufacture of beverages. Therefore, reliance on the above judgment to deny the benefit without establishing the fact that the products, in the instant case, were used in the manufacture of beverages and fall under the exclusion cannot be sustained. It is also on record that the purchase order was placed by M/s. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. who are one of the major manufacturers of tobacco products; hence, the Revenue has failed to conclusively prove that the goods were used in the manufacture of beverages which is one of the conditions to deny the benefit of the above notification. 9. The relevant clause of the Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 is extracted below: Effective rates of basic and additional duty for specified goods falling under chapters 1 to 99 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Reve....