1999 (5) TMI 233 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether beer is a "food article" within the meaning of Exemption Notification No. 125/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether beer is a "food article" within the meaning of Exemption Notification No. 125/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986.

The core issue in this appeal is whether beer qualifies as a "food article" under Exemption Notification No. 125/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986. The notification exempts certain goods when imported for use in processing/packaging food articles from customs duty.

Arguments by the Petitioner:
The petitioner, a company, imported an automatic bottle labeling machine and claimed it should be exempt from customs duty under the said notification, arguing that beer is a food article based on the following grounds:
- Beer falls within the purview of the Ministry of Food Processing Industries.
- The Bureau of Indian Standards specifies a standard for beer under its Food and Agriculture Department.
- The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Exports Development Authority Act includes alcoholic beverages in its schedule.
- Beer is included in the Import and Export Policy for registered exporters.
- Beer falls under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
- Beer has nutritional value and is consumed for various health benefits.
- Beer is categorized under "Food Products" in the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Classification of Goods) Rules, 1971.
- The ingredients of beer (malt, rice, sugar, yeast) are food articles.

Arguments by the Appellant:
The appellant raised preliminary objections and argued that:
- "Food" and "Beverages" are treated differently under Section IV of the Customs Tariff Act, and beer, being an alcoholic beverage, cannot be included in the exemption notification.
- In common parlance, beer is not considered a food article, supported by precedents such as Collector of Central Excise v. Parle Exports (P) Ltd.

Court's Analysis:
- The court examined various sections of the Customs Tariff Act and noted that food articles are not defined within the Act.
- It referenced State of Bombay v. V.G. Shah, which highlighted that the term "food" can be interpreted differently based on context.
- The court emphasized that the meaning of "food articles" should be understood in common parlance rather than technical or dictionary definitions.
- The court noted that the Customs Tariff Act is a special statute dealing with customs duties, and the exemption notification must be construed in its specific context.
- The court referred to Article 47 of the Constitution of India, which aims to prohibit intoxicating drinks, including beer, for public health reasons.
- It was highlighted that beer, being an alcoholic beverage, is not consumed for nutritional purposes by the common Indian populace but for intoxication or pleasure.
- The court found that including beer as a food article would lead to absurdity and is beyond common perception.

Judgment:
The court concluded that beer does not qualify as a "food article" for the purposes of the exemption notification dated 17-2-1986. Therefore, the judgment under appeal was set aside, and the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.