TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner in the impugned order classified 'guar dal flour' under sub-heading No. 1301.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 & demanded duties with interest and imposed penalty. Hence this appeal. 2.1 After hearing both sides and considering the material it is found - (a) The appellants are manufacturing Tamarind, Kernel Powder and Guar Dal Flour. (b) Guar plant, Cynamopsis tetrafonolabus, a pod bearing legume produces seeds. The seed coats are removed by heating and Milling. The endosperm is separated from the germ by various milling process. The Milled endosperm, which is in flour powder form is commercial "guar gum" powder or as is seen form. The Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology 4th Edition Vol. 12. The appellants are also obtaining the flour of the Guar Dal (Seeds split) procured by them. The flour is not being found to have undergone any chemical treatments to modify the same and/or to improve or stabilise their mucilaginous properties (viscosity, solubility etc). Milled simplicitor powder is resulting in "Guar dal flour". (c) After ascertaining the nature of the entit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able Saps and ... - Mucilages and thickners whether or not modified derived from Vegetable products. 1302.31 - Agar Agar 1302.32 - Mucilage & thickners whether or not modified derived from locus bean locust bean seeds or guar seeds. 1302.33 - Other. This comparative reading would indicate that the coverage under Heading 1301 of CETA 1985 is selective, called out of the detailed list of products covered under Headings 1301 & 1302 of HSN. While Lac, gums (without qualified natural as in HSN) resin (minus Oleo resins) and other Vegetable Saps and Extracts are only covered under CETA 1301. The entire group consisting of 'other mucilages and thickness, whether or not modified derived from vegetable products' of Heading 1302 of HSN are not included by the entry 1301 in CETA 1985. The coverage of 1301 if CETA is clipped. This snipping would induce a finding that entities falling under 1302.32 of HSN. i.e. Mucilage and thickness whether or not modified derived from locust beans, locust bean seeds' or guar seeds would be excluded from Heading 1301 of Chapter 13 of CETA 1985. Thus 'Gu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expression, description of the goods under Heading No. 13.10 are of plant saps/extracts. This submission of the Ld. Advocate is fully supported by the principle of interpretation known as Noscitur a Sociis. Reliance placed by the Advocate on the Supreme Court decision in Pardeep Aggarbatli, Ludhiana v. State of Punjab and Others - [1997 (96) E.L.T. 219 (S.C.) = (1997) 8 SCC 511] where the principles of Noscitur a Sociis was applied for the purpose of interpretation of taxing entry would squarely apply in interpreting the entry 1301 in CETA 1985 in this manner as it is found that, in the aforesaid case of Pardeep Aggarbatti, the appellant was a registered dealer in "Dhoop and agarbatti". The entry No. 16 of Schedule 'A' to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 covered "cosmetics, perfumery and toilet goods excluding tooth paste, tooth powder, kum kum and soap". With effect from 28-9-1979 the new entries introduced in the said Schedule read as under : "16 cosmetics and toilet goods excluding tooth paste, tooth powder, kum kum and soap". 16-A Perfumery including dhoop and aggarbatti". The Supreme Court after considering the issue as to whether "dhoop" and "aggarbatti" would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; This view is also supported by the decision of the CESTAT in the case of Kraps Chem Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE reported at 2005 (179) E.L.T. 589 and Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 196. (f) The show cause notice dated 11-2-2002 proposes to demand of duty for the period from 28-2-1997 to 31-3-2000, is for the period beyond one year prior to the date of issue of show cause notice. For the purpose of raising the above demand proviso to Section 11A(1) of the said Act had been invoked to sustain the same. In para 12 of the show cause notice, it was alleged that the appellants had contravened the provisions of Central Excise Rules. However, in this paragraph no allegation is found what and whether these contraventions were with intent evade payment of duty. In para 13 of the show cause notice it was alleged that the appellants had manufactured the goods in question, with the aid of power and this act of contravention on the part of the appellants was alleged to be committed by recourse to suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty. In para 16(i) of the show cause notice, the first provi....