9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jain, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - These two appeals have same facts and arise out of the same order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. These are, therefore, dealt with vide this common order. 2. The appellants manufacture chocolates on job work basis for M/s. Cadbury India Ltd. M/s. Cudbury India Ltd. purchased cocoa beans wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturing overhead/conversion charges etc. had not been added. After hearing the assessee, the Asstt. Commissioner in separate orders confirmed total demand of Rs. 65,15,400.59 and imposed total penalty of Rs. 17,000/-. Against these two orders, the appellants filed two appeals before the Commissioner. The appellants contended before the Commissioner that the cocoa liquor was not excisable and in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the question of excisability at all. As regards the coverage of Heading 1804.00, he held that for falling under this item, the articles need not be directly edible. As regards the marketability, he held that the fact that it was sent to M/s. Cadbury India Ltd. would clearly show that it is marketable. He agreed with the assessee that the increase proposed in the show cause notice may not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Tariff have chosen not to cover this item has merit. 4. Shri Jain arguing on behalf of the Revenue referred to Rule 4 of the Rules of Interpretation of the Tariff in claiming that Heading 1804.00 being akin to the contested product, the excisability stands established. We have examined this claim. Heading 1804.00 covers "other food preparation containing cocoa." The ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
