M/S. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd Vs. Cc, Chennai - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/942016
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnOct-12-2010
Case NumberC/187 of 2002
Judge THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
AppellantM/S. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd
RespondentCc, Chennai
Advocates:Shri T. Ramesh, Adv., for the Appellants. Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Respondents.
Excerpt:
per: jyoti balasundaram, 1. the issue in dispute in this appeal is the eligibility of the “fully automatic labelling machine” imported by the appellants herein to the benefit of exemption in terms of notification no.125/86 dated 17.02.86. 2. we have heard both sides. at the time of import of the machine the appellants were in the business of manufacture of beer and indian made foreign liquor. they had imported the machinery for their proposed industry for processing fruit syrups, juices, jams and pickles. however, at the time of import of the articles in question, the appellants had not commenced any manufacture of food articles and the machine imported was to be used for affixing labels on beer bottles. since the benefit of notification is available to the machinery used in the food processing industry, and since beer is not an article of food, as held by the apex court in the case of m/s. kalyani breweries ltd. vs. cc, calcutta - 2001 (134) elt 12 (s.c), the authorities below have rightly rejected the benefit of notification. we, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
Judgment:

Per: Jyoti Balasundaram,

1. The issue in dispute in this appeal is the eligibility of the “Fully Automatic Labelling Machine” imported by the appellants herein to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.125/86 dated 17.02.86.

2. We have heard both sides. At the time of import of the machine the appellants were in the business of manufacture of beer and Indian made foreign liquor. They had imported the machinery for their proposed industry for processing fruit syrups, juices, jams and pickles. However, at the time of import of the articles in question, the appellants had not commenced any manufacture of food articles and the machine imported was to be used for affixing labels on beer bottles. Since the benefit of Notification is available to the machinery used in the food processing industry, and since beer is not an article of food, as held by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Kalyani Breweries Ltd. Vs. CC, Calcutta - 2001 (134) ELT 12 (S.C), the authorities below have rightly rejected the benefit of notification. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.