2001 (5) TMI 288 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of a product manufactured by Kellogs (India) Ltd. under heading 19.04 of the tariff.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai, the issue at hand is the classification of a product named Chocos manufactured by Kellogs (India) Ltd. The product is described as wheat flakes coated with cocoa and sugar. The manufacturer claimed the classification of the product under heading 19.04 of the tariff, which pertains to prepared foods obtained by the swelling or roasting of cereals or cereal products. However, the department's chemical test revealed that the product contained more than 6% by weight of cocoa calculated on a totally defatted basis. This finding led the department to propose the classification of the product under heading 18.04, which covers "Other food preparations containing cocoa." The appellant contested this classification, questioning the accuracy of the test report and seeking clarification on the methodology used to determine the cocoa content in the product.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had requested a copy of the test report from the Deputy Chief Chemist and had also sought information on the methodology of analysis used to conclude that the product contained more than 6% cocoa. The appellant's request for cross-examination of the Deputy Chief Chemist further emphasized their desire to understand the basis for the classification proposed by the department. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of informing the manufacturer of the methodology employed in determining the composition of the product, especially when classification depends on specific chemical criteria. Given the lack of clarity regarding the test methodology and the appellant's request for further information, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant should be provided with details of the methodology used by the Deputy Chief Chemist to determine the cocoa content in the product. The Tribunal directed that if the appellant wished to cross-examine the Deputy Chief Chemist after receiving this information, they should be allowed to do so. Subsequently, both parties would have an opportunity to present evidence before a fresh decision on the classification of the product is made.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the previous order, and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for reevaluation and appropriate classification in accordance with the law. This judgment underscores the importance of transparency in the classification process and the right of the manufacturer to understand the basis for the classification of their product under the relevant tariff headings.