TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of duty confirmed by the impugned order. 1.2 This 'guar dal flour' is obtained by the following process - "The appellants purchase split guar dal. Water is added to purchase 'split guar dal' so as to soften it and pulverize the same, in a pulverizer for fine mesh. Then that is sieved and dried in centrifuged dryer. The flour so obtained is mixed and packed and ready for sale." 1.3 The Commissioner 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed vide Note 2(c) to Chapter 7 is required to be examined. (iii) Since it is not prepared, modified flour, it is not excluded by Note 1 to Chapter 11 of CETA, 1985 General Note No. 3 of HSN which stipulates, what are to be covered and concluded under that Chapter it reads as - "(3) Products obtained by submitting new materials of other chapters (dried leguminous vegetables, potatoes fruit etc.) to process similar to these indicated in paragraph (1) or (2) above. " Para (1) & (2) provide for milling, sewing & other process and the reading of the notes induces us to consider the process in this case conducted on leguminous Guar Dal to be covered as milling industry products covered under Chapter 11 of CETA, 1985. (iv)&nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 'Guar Dal Flour' whether milled or further worked to be stabilised will not fall under Heading 1301 of CETA 1985. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Heading 1301 of CETA 1985 has to be interpreted. It is not qualified by the word "Natural" as in HSN Heading 1301. Surely it cannot be read in CETA 1985 to include even artificial gums. Tariff Heading No. 13.10 does not cover seed gum. It would cover gum which is/are in the nature of plant exudates/extracts - Significance of the word "other" as appearing in expression "other vegetable saps and extracts" cannot be ignored while reading the Tariff entry. The coverage of the goods under Heading No. 13.01 would be of "Lac; gums, resins and other vegetable saps and extracts". The term "gums" as appearing in the aforesaid expression should be in the nature of plant exudates/extracts since the other term like "resins, vegetables saps and extr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n they are grouped together, each word in the entry draws colour from the other words therein. This is the principle of noscitur a sociis. 10. We are in no doubt whatever that the word "perfumery" in the said Entry 16 draws colour from the words "cosmetics" and "toilet goods" therein and that, so read, the word "perfumery" in the said Entry 16 can only refer to such articles of perfumery as are used, as cosmetics and toilet goods are, upon the person. The word "perfumery" in the context in which it is used has, therefore, no application to "dhoop" and "aggarbatti......." Thus, by application of principles of Noscitur a Sociis the Supreme Court held that the term "perfume'" as appearing in the company of the words 'cosmetics and toil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 a....