Collector of Central Excise, Madras Vs. Gum Products (P) Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 110 of 1987.
Petitioner: Collector of Central Excise, Madras
Respondent: Gum Products (P) Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 110 of 1987.
Judges: A.M. AHMADI, C.J. & B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 12, 1997
Head Note:
EXCISE LAW
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944:
Schedule – Item 1-A and 68 – Excise – Chewing-gum covered under entry 1-A – no mention of bubble – gum – classification – Tribun-al holding it to be distinct commercial item excisable under residuary Entry 68 – Held that Tribunal’s decision is a plausible view and there are no reasons for taking a different view.
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944:
Schedule – Item 1-A and 68 – Excise – Chewing-gum covered under entry 1-A – no mention of bubble – gum – classification – Tribun-al holding it to be distinct commercial item excisable under residuary Entry 68 – Held that Tribunal’s decision is a plausible view and there are no reasons for taking a different view.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The respondent company manufactures coated chewing gum, bubble gum etc. While chewing gum is specifically covered under Item 1-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, bubble gum does not find a mention in that entry. The question then is whether bubble gum can be classified under Entry 1-A or under the residuary Entry 68 of the said Schedule. The Tribunal has taken the view that bubble gum, not having been included in Item 1-A, would fall under Item 68 of the Schedule, more so because it is commercially a distinct item. The Revenue contended that bubble gum was a gum-like chewing gum and would, therefore, fall within Item 1-A (1) of the Schedule. This conten-tion was negatived by the Tribunal firstly because it is not included in Item 1-A (1) and is commercially known as different item altogether and is not the same thing as chewing gum. We see no reason why we should take a different view as the view taken by the Tribunal is a plausible view. We, therefore, do not see any substance in this appeal filed by the Revenue and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
1. The respondent company manufactures coated chewing gum, bubble gum etc. While chewing gum is specifically covered under Item 1-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, bubble gum does not find a mention in that entry. The question then is whether bubble gum can be classified under Entry 1-A or under the residuary Entry 68 of the said Schedule. The Tribunal has taken the view that bubble gum, not having been included in Item 1-A, would fall under Item 68 of the Schedule, more so because it is commercially a distinct item. The Revenue contended that bubble gum was a gum-like chewing gum and would, therefore, fall within Item 1-A (1) of the Schedule. This conten-tion was negatived by the Tribunal firstly because it is not included in Item 1-A (1) and is commercially known as different item altogether and is not the same thing as chewing gum. We see no reason why we should take a different view as the view taken by the Tribunal is a plausible view. We, therefore, do not see any substance in this appeal filed by the Revenue and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
