Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Delhi-III

2015 (10) TMI 156 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Classification of goods - Classification under sub-heading 1704.90 or under sub-heading 1704.10 - Held that:- On the identical facts the Department had initiated proceedings against Chennai Unit and the Commissioner vide Order in original No.8/09 dated 31.03.2009 have confirmed duty demand of ₹ 5,47,94,432/-against Chennai Unit in respect of clearances of mentos mint, and six other products of similar nature during the period from March, 2003 to February, 2005. However, the Tribunal in res .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ose where it is the gum which gives them essential character and in-fact in terms of the Provisions of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (para A/25.02.01) the bubblegums and chewing gums must contain not less than 12.5% to 14% of gums. The product, in question, contains contains 97% of sugar and glucose, about 2% fats and colours and flavours and about 1% or less of gum arabic which is used as stabilizer and emulsifier, and its function is to prevent the crystallization of sugar and maintain uniform .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6/2010-EX(DB) - MISC. ORDER NO. 50936/2015 - Dated:- 2-3-2015 - Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) And S K Mohanty, Member (J),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri K Anand, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Pramod Kumar, JCDR ORDER Per: Rakesh Kumar: Appellant are manufacturers of sugar confectionaries falling under Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Tariff. One of the products being manufactured by them is mentos mint which is the subject matter of dispute in this matter. The appellant company has two units, one unit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n this present case is about classification of the product. According to the appellant the goods manufactured by them are "other sugar confectionary" classifiable under sub-heading 1704.90 of the Tariff, while according to the Department, the goods are classifiable as "Chewing Gums" under sub-heading 1704.10. In this regard, there is no dispute that the mentos mint manufactured by the appellant contains 97% sugar and glucose, about 2 % fat, colours and flavours and contains o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he duty demand of ₹ 26,25,516/- for the period from April 2003 to February, 2005, the show cause notice for which had been issued on 30.04.2008, Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed alongwith stay application. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri K.Anand, Advocate, the ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the proceedings against Gurgaon Unit had been preceded by the proceedings against Chennai Unit which had resulted in an order-in-original No.8/0 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r been filing classification declarations giving the composition of the product, that in view of this, the present appeal would also not survive on the ground of limitation, that in any case, the appellant have strong prima-facie case on merit as while the product, in question, contains less than 1 % of Gum Arabic and the purpose of gum Arabic is to prevent crystallization of sugar and uniform distribution of fat, while in terms of para A.25.02.01 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 19 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l character and its function is only to prevent crystallization of sugar and maintaining uniform distribution of fat, that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct either on limitation or on merits and the appellants have strong primaface case in their favour and, hence, the requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal and the recovery thereof may be stayed. 4. Shri Pramod Kumar, the ld. JCDR opposes the stay application by rei .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version