Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Poona Dal and Besan Mills

Collector of Central Excise vs Poona Dal and Besan Mills

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 03, 1997
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/10873

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Poona Dal and Besan Mills

Legal References

Reported In
(1997)(92)ELT509TriDel

Excerpt

.....after examining the product accepted the contention and dropped the proceedings. the revenue have come up in appeal against this order.2. we have heard shri satnam singh, sdr for the revenue and shri g.shiva dass, advocate for the respondents.3. in deciding the issue before him, the collector sampled the contested goods as well as other products admittedly falling under chapter 21 and decided against the classification alleged in the show cause notice. he observed that the necessary ingredients like salt and chilly powder were not present in the impugned goods. he observed that the goods were simply mixture of gramflour and maize flour. it was his finding that the mixture did not amount to manufacture and that the product although so advertised as pacudamix was commonly known only as besan in the retail market. we find that this logic of his has not been challenged in the appeal memorandum. the appeal memo concentrates only on the fact that the goods were packed in pre-determined quantities which amounted to being put up in unit containers. on perusal of the collector's order, we find that his belief that the goods should be described as product of milling industry was well founded. we also find that although it was not so alleged in the show cause notice, the correct classification would be under chapter 11 where even the goods packed in unit containers were exempted from duty by virtue of an exemption notification. we find no infirmity in the collector's order, we uphold the same and dismiss this appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The respondents in this appeal were marketing a product known as "Pacudamix" in gunny bags of 20 kgs. and 80 kgs. containing a mix of gramflour and maize flour in the proportions of either 70:30 or 55:45.

A show cause notice was issued alleging that these products were dutiable under Chapter Heading 2107.91 and demanding duty for the back period amounting to Rs. 32,32,599/-. Before the Collector, a plea was made that these products were not classifiable under Chapter 21 but would fall under Chapter 11 as products of the milling industry and would attract duty at nil rate. The Adjudicating Collector after examining the product accepted the contention and dropped the proceedings. The Revenue have come up in appeal against this order.

2. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, SDR for the Revenue and Shri G.Shiva Dass, Advocate for the Respondents.

3. In deciding the issue before him, the Collector sampled the contested goods as well as other products admittedly falling under Chapter 21 and decided against the classification alleged in the show cause notice. He observed that the necessary ingredients like salt and chilly powder were not present in the impugned goods. He observed that the goods were simply mixture of gramflour and maize flour. It was his finding that the mixture did not amount to manufacture and that the product although so advertised as Pacudamix was commonly known only as Besan in the retail market. We find that this logic of his has not been challenged in the Appeal Memorandum. The appeal memo concentrates only on the fact that the goods were packed in pre-determined quantities which amounted to being put up in unit containers. On perusal of the Collector's order, we find that his belief that the goods should be described as product of milling industry was well founded. We also find that although it was not so alleged in the show cause notice, the correct classification would be under Chapter 11 where even the goods packed in unit containers were exempted from duty by virtue of an exemption notification. We find no infirmity in the Collector's order, we uphold the same and dismiss this appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial