ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 63/2004 (G) CE dated 18.3.2004 by which the appellant’s products namely, ‘Tomato Rasam Paste’ and ‘Pepper Rasam Paste’ have been classified under Sub Heading 2104.10 as soups and broths and preparations therefore, Homogenised composite good preparations under the heading 2101.10 refers to Unit Containers and bearing a brand name. The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted their plea and set aside the Order-in-Original, classifying the products in question under residuary heading No. 2104.10 carrying nil rate of duty. The Department has classified the products under heading 2103.10 attracting duty at 16%. The Commissioner (Appeals) after detailed examination has held that the item is identical to the products held for classification under heading claimed by the assessee in the case of MTR Food Products v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore . This citation is disputed by the Revenue for application on the ground that the product in the case of MTR Food Products was in powder form while in the present case it is in paste form. There is an another ground raised by the Revenue is that in the case of MTR Food Products, the products contain dhal or rice while in the present case the ingredients contain spices and flavouring Tomato or Tamarind in paste form.
2. We have considered the submissions of the Revenue and the learned Consultant and the learned DR in the matter. We are of the considered opinion that the products either in powder form or in paste form would not made much difference as ultimately it is for preparation of Rasam. The findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 4 and 5 are reproduced herein below:
4. I have carefully gone through the case records and submissions made at the time of Personal Hearing. The issue involved is regarding the classification of the product-RASAM PASTE (TOMATO RASAM AND PEPPER RASAM). The lower adjudicating authority classified it as Mixed condiments and mixed seasonings under Sub Heading 21.03 of Central Excise Tariff whereas the appellants claim the product as Soups and Broths under heading 21.04 ibid. In this context, it would be useful to examine the meaning of both the descriptions as available on record. Explanatory Notes on Page 168 and 169 of HSN.
1) Mixed condiments and Mixed Seasonings: Mixed condiments and mixed seasoning containing spices differ from the spices and mixed spices of headings 09.04 to 09.10 in that they also contain one or more flavouring or seasoning substances of Chapters other than Chapter 9, in such proportions that the mixture has no longer the essential character of a spice within the meaning of Chapter 9 (see the General Explanatory Note to that Chapter)
2) Soups and Broths and Preparations therefore : This category includes:
(1) Preparations for soups or broths requiring only the addition of water, milk etc.
(2) Soups and broths ready for consumption after heating. These products are generally based on vegetable products (flour. starches, tapioca, macaroni, spaghetti and the like, rice, plant extracts etc.), meat, meat extracts, fish, crustaceans, mollusks or other aquatic invertebrates, peptones, ammo-acids or yeast extract. They may also contain a considerable proportion of salt.
They are generally put up as tablets, cakes, cubes or in powder or liquid form.
The dictionary meanings are as given hereunder:
The Oxford Learners Dictionary explains ‘Condiment’ as “Seasoning (eg. salt or pepper) used to give flavour and relish to food” Seasoning’ Is explained as ‘herb, spice etc used to season food’ The word ‘season is explained as flavour (food) with salt, pepper etc. highly seasoned sauce, lamb seasoned with garlic and rosemary’.
The ingredients and process of manufacture and end use of the impugned products are as follows:
TOMATO RASAM:
Ingredients: This product is in paste form and, is packed in Bottles, Ingredients that are used in the manufacture are Tomato, Salt, Tamarind, Jaggery, Citric Acid, Chilly Powder, Pepper Powder, Cumin Powder, Gingley Oil, Mustards, Asafoetida and Cumin seed.
Process of Manufacture:
Tomato pieces are made into pulp, cooked and ground to get a fine paste adding Salt, Tamarind, Jaggery and Citric Acid. Then other ingredients are added and mixed. Entire quantity is fried in Oil with Mustards, Asafoetida and Cumin Seeds. Resultant Product is the Rasam Paste. End use:
One teaspoon of Paste is to be mixed with 350 ml of boiling water to make Rasam. Rasam is a common South Indian food and it is a dish during the course of South Indian Meal (Thali). Rasam in liquid form can be consumed as a soup and also it is poured on to cooked white rice, mixed and eaten.
PEPPER RASAM:
Ingredients: This product is in paste form and is packed in Bottles. Ingredients that are used in the manufacture are Tamarind, Salt, Sugar, Turmeric Powder, Citric Acid, Chilly Powder. Pepper Powder, Coriander Powder, Cumin Powder, Gingley Oil, Mustards, Asafoetida and Cumin seed.
Process of Manufacture:
Cleaned Tamarind is soaked in filtered hot water along with Salt, Sugar, Turmeric Powder and Citric Acid. Then the above mixture passes through pulper to get fine paste. Then Chilly powder, Pepper Powder and Coriander Powder are added and allowed to settle. Then mix is fried in Gingely Oil along with Mustards, Cumin Seed and Asafoetida.
End use:
One teaspoon of Paste is to be mixed with 150 ml of boiling water to make Rasam. Rasam is a common South Indian food and it is a dish in the course of South Indian Meal (Thali). Rasam in liquid form can be consumed as a SOLID and also it is poured on to cooked white rice, mixed and eaten.
In the light of the above explanations/Meanings, I feel that the ratio of the decision in the case of MTR Food Products v. Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore is squarely applicable to the impugned products. It was observed by the Hon’ble Tribunal that the Sambar Mix/Rasam Mix are preparations of Soups or Broths requiring only addition of water and heating and are classifiable under heading 21.04 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The difference between the product referred by the Tribunal and that of appellants is that the former is in powder form and the latter is in paste form: The directions for use prescribed on the packing label show that by adding requiring quantity of boiling water to a teaspoon of the paste, Tomato Rasam/Pepper Rasam is ready and could be used as Soup.
5. The appellants’ products are nothing but very common ‘day-to-day preparations in South Indian Vegetarian Cuisine and not require any trade related or technical information to explain or to understand the product. The word ‘broth’ according to the dictionary meaning is an infusion or decoction of vegetable and animal substance in water used us a soup or a medium for culture of bacteria. Here we are not concerned with the culture of bacteria and it is only an infusion or decoction vegetable substance used is such as a part of one’s food known as RASAM. It is a settled law that for interpretation of statutes like our Central Excises Act that meanings given to articles in a fiscal statutes like this must be understand in the same manner as people in trade and commerce, conversant with the subject generally treat and understand them in the usual course. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in many instances pointed that in interpreting the meaning of words, in a taxing statute, it should be understood as in common parlance or in the commercial world — in particular sense with its primary function and utility. It is now well settled law that the words of every day use occurring in a taxing statute must be construed not in their scientific or technical sense but as understood in common parlance that is in their popular sense. In view of the above explanation and the ratio of the decision taken by the Hon’ble Tribunal in MTR Food Products case, I do not agree with the classification of the impugned products resorted by the original adjudicating authority and I hold that the products in question are classifiable under Sub Heading 2104.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which is more specific and there is no need to go to residuary heading 21.08. Since it is a classification dispute involving interpretation of Statute, no penalty is imposable on the appellants. In the case of CCE, Indore v. Syncom Formulation (I) Ltd. 2002 (150) ELT 1228 (Trib-Del) the Hon’ble Tribunal has held that penalty is not imposable when there is dispute in classification matters in as ‘much the difference of opinion may be genuine. Therefore, I pass the following order.
ORDER
I set aside the Order-in-Original No. 21/2003 dt 30.5.2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Nellore by allowing the appeal filed by the appellants.
We have carefully considered the matter and perused the impugned order. We find that the order is legal and proper. There is no ground to take a different view on the view expressed in the MTR Food Products case. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court)