Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1996 (9) TMI 446

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hatni" manufactured by them would be classifiable under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 2107.91 and not under sub-heading 2107.11 as claimed by them. It was held that the said product was not Chatni for being covered by the latter Tariff entry which covered, inter alia, Sauces, Ketchup and the like and preparations therefor. Rectification of the order has been sought on the ground that there is a mistake apparent from the record as the Tribunal had failed to consider a number of important submissions as also the extensive case law cited in the course of the hearing of the appeals. 2. Shri S.K. Kohli, learned Counsel for the applicants stated at the outset that the application has been filed taking note of the Supreme Court's decisio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... had not considered this argument either. The last point urged by Shri Kohli was that Government had issued various notifications exempting chutney showing its classification under Heading 2103.11. This applicability of the principle of contemporaneo expositio had not been noted by the Tribunal. He pleaded in conclusion that the application may be allowed and the order passed rectified. 3. Replying to the arguments, Shri G.D. Sharma, learned Departmental Representative stated that there is no error in the Tribunal's order which called for rectification. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The first point raised by Shri Kohli related to the Supreme Court decision wherein it was held that if the Trib .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Court in Oswal Agro Mills Limited v. Collector of Central Excise. The relevance of trade parlance as spelt out in the judgments had been duly taken note of. The Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) had held in their respective orders that Pan chatney which is used in Pan which is not a food article is not chatney as Chatni is taken along with food items for enhancement of taste. The finding has been approved by the Tribunal and Patna High Court judgment in Kokil Resin v. State of Bihar [AIR 1951 Patna 387] was relied upon in support of the proposition that Pan is not food stuff. The Supreme Court judgment in Novopan India Limited v. CCE, Hyderabad [1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.)] was considered as also the judgment in CCE v. Parle Exp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... meanings are invariably to be avoided. If that were so, the appellants' own exercise in referring to the English-Hindi dictionaries will be a futile one. Dictionary meanings have actually been relied upon in some decisions, e.g. Padamjee Pulp and Paper Mills Limited, Pune v. Union of India 1991 (51) E.L.T. 273 (Bom.) = 1991 (33) ECR 489. It was held therein by the High Court of Bombay by reading the expressions in the dictionaries, that the term "writing" will cover tracing and hence tracing paper was classified as Writing Paper under the then existing Tariff Item 17(1). The view that a reference to dictionary is apt to be a somewhat delusive guide was expressed by the Supreme Court in Aditya Mills Limited v. Union of India 1988 (37) E.L.T. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ey, the product is not chutney. The Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) had considered the scope of the product chutney which occurs in the company of sauce and ketchup and the manner of use and ingredients from which made and come to the conclusion that the product in question is not chutney and hence outside the purview of the said tariff entry. We agreed with this approach while recording our order. Once this heading is thus ruled out and there being no other specific item for it, the product has to fall under the residual heading which is what was decided by the lower authorities. The question of applying specific entry to the exclusion of the general entry does not come to the fore as the Heading 2103.11 claimed as specifically .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates