Dry Tech Processors (I) Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Bhopal
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/53779/2014-EX[DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a product is shown to be a ready-to-consume food mix within the wording of Serial No. 19 of Notification No. 1/2011-CE, the concessional exemption applies; the decision rests on the Tribunal's earlier order in the appellant's previous appeals, which held that the same product falls within "all kinds of food mixes including instant food mix", and on the principle that the same identical issue arising for an identical product is to be decided consistently with that earlier binding determination, so the impugned order is set aside.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.08-09/COMMR/CEX/BPL-II/2014 dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bhopal]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. Whether Press reporters may be allowed to see the
order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in
any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
authorities?
__________________________________________________
Dry Tech Processors (I) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Bhopal Respondent
Present for the Appellant : ShriS.P. Tavkar, Consultant
Present for the Respondent: Shri.M.S. Negi, DR
Coram:HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
HONBLE MR.S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 19/01/2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 50508/2015
PER: RAKESH KUMAR
Heard both the sides.
2. The point of dispute in this case is as to whether the product called Fresubin DM, Fresubin vanilla, Fresubin high-fibre, Fresubin Chocolate and Fresubin Mango, being manufactured by the appellant is eligible for concessional rate of duty of 1% advalorum exemption under Notification No.1/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 (Sl.No.19). There is no dispute that the product is manufactured from hydrolysed corn starch (45-50%), Sugar (15-20%), Milk Protein (15-20%) Vegetable oil (15-20%) with added vitamins and flavouring material. There is also no dispute that the product, in question, is classifiable under heading 2106 9099. The only dispute is as to whether the goods are covered by Sl.No.19 of the table to the Notification No.1/2011-CE which covers all kinds of foods mixes including instant food mix. While according to the appellant, the goods are ready to consume food mix which can be consumed by adding water to it, according to the Department the goods are food supplement and are not covered by Sl.No.19 of the Notification.
3. Though today this matter has been listed for hearing of the stay application, Shri S.P. Tavkar, Consultant, appearing for the appellant, pleaded that earlier the Tribunal had heard the appeal No.E/305/2010, E/2893/2010, E/2895/2010, E/2962/2012 & E/57485/2013 filed by the same appellant and involving identical issue pertaining to the previous period and those appeals have been allowed by the Tribunal. He, therefore, requested for final disposal of the matter. Since the appeals for the previous periods mentioned above filed by the same appellant and involving identical issue and pertaining to previous period, have been allowed by the Tribunal, it is decided to waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up these matters for final disposal.
4. In view of the Tribunals order No.54994-54998/2014 dated 24.12.2014 in the appeals mentioned above holding that the products, in question, is covered by the entry all kind of food mixes including instant food mix in the exemption Notifications, this appeal also has to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
5. The stay application also stands disposed of.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(S.K.MOHANTY) (RAKESH KUMAR)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
0
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free