Globe Confectionery Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Globe Confectionery vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 21, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39771

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/39771
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: N T C.N.B., P Bajaj
Decided On: Jul 21, 2005
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

Globe Confectionery

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(190)ELT239TriDel

Excerpt

.....of the nature of their ingredients".during the hearing of the case, learned counsel submitted that the purpose of this note is to place all 'mithai' and 'namkeens' under tariff heading 2108. it is bemg pointed out that the note removes any doubts or possible conflict about the classification, inasmuch as in the absence of the note, the items could have fallen under sugar preparation also since sugar pre-dominated (about 57%) by weight in the products.3. learned sdr has taken us through the order and other materials to show that the items manufactured by the assessee could not be called rasgulla at all inasmuch as rasgulla is never produced without curdling milk and chabena is an ingredient.4. the dispute is not whether the item is rasgulla or peda. nor is classification dependent upon composition. composition is irrelevant, since note 10 reproduced above states that "products remain classified under 2108" irrespective of the nature of their ingredients. the scheme of the classification is to place all "misthans" or "mithai" under 2108. the terms of the note are "include sweet meats commonly known as misthans or mithai or by any other name". in view of such broad scope of the note, the appellant's claim for classification has to be accepted, because there could be no doubt that the items are sweet meat. dictionary refers to sweet meat as "food rich in sugar". thus, despite sugar being the pre-dominant ingredient, in view of the note the items can't go under sugar confectionary.5. in view of what is stated above, we set aside the classification ordered in the impugned order and allow the appeals. the appellants shall be entitled to consequential relief, if any.

Full Judgment

1. The dispute is about classification of two products, namely, Rasgulla and Peda manufactured by the appellant. The assessee claimed classification under Heading 21.08, which is for "Edible preparations, not elsewhere specified or included". Under the impugned order, it has been held that correct classification would be under Heading 1704.90 which is for "Sugar confectionery (including white chocolate), not containing cocoa".

2. The claim of the appellant was based on Note No. 10 to Chapter 21.

That note reads as under :- "10. Sub-heading Nos. 2108.90 and 2108.99 include sweet meats commonly known as 'Misthans ' or 'mithai' or by any other name. They also include products commonly known as 'namkeens' 'mixtures', 'bhujia', 'chabena' or by any other name. Such products "remain classified in these sub-headings irrespective of the nature of their ingredients".

During the hearing of the case, learned Counsel submitted that the purpose of this note is to place all 'mithai' and 'namkeens' under Tariff Heading 2108. It is bemg pointed out that the note removes any doubts or possible conflict about the classification, inasmuch as in the absence of the note, the items could have fallen under sugar preparation also since sugar pre-dominated (about 57%) by weight in the products.

3. Learned SDR has taken us through the order and other materials to show that the items manufactured by the assessee could not be called Rasgulla at all inasmuch as Rasgulla is never produced without curdling milk and chabena is an ingredient.

4. The dispute is not whether the item is Rasgulla or Peda. Nor is classification dependent upon composition. Composition is irrelevant, since Note 10 reproduced above states that "products remain classified under 2108" irrespective of the nature of their ingredients. The scheme of the classification is to place all "misthans" or "mithai" under 2108. The terms of the note are "include sweet meats commonly known as misthans or mithai or by any other name". In view of such broad scope of the note, the appellant's claim for classification has to be accepted, because there could be no doubt that the items are sweet meat. Dictionary refers to sweet meat as "food rich in sugar". Thus, despite sugar being the pre-dominant ingredient, in view of the note the items can't go under sugar confectionary.

5. In view of what is stated above, we set aside the classification ordered in the impugned order and allow the appeals. The appellants shall be entitled to consequential relief, if any.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Globe Confectionery vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge N T C.N.B., P Bajaj