Case: Commnr. Of Central Excise, Meerut Vs. Maharshi Ayurveda Corp. Ltd

of the rules of interpretation of Schedule-I, "The heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description." Since the respondents preparation is covered by entries in Chapter 20, the same should be preferred to the residuary clause in Chapter 21 which is of general description. Relying upon the judgments of this Court in Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, (1990 (45) E.L.T. 525), Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, (1991) (51) E.L.T. 165), Speedway Rubber Co. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, (2002 (143) E.L.T. 8) and C.C. (General), New Delhi vs. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd. (2005) (186) E.L.T. 532), it was contended that the Heading Note which is more specific should be preferred to the residuary clause. Findings 16. The product under reference is a mixture of assorted vegetation and dry fruits and seeds. That different vegetations namely Khas Khas, Aswagandha & Brahmi Booti is turned into powder and processed in Khas Khas and giri badam (almond) oil and then the whole mixture is processed in sugar syrup under vacuum and thereafter choti illayachii (cardamom) and roof kewara are added as flavour. Since the product "Herbonic" is mixture of different vegetation it is rightly been classified by the Tribunal under Chapter 20. In Chapter 21 there is an entry reading as "Edible preparations, not elsewhere specified or included" under the particular heading "Miscellaneous Edible Preparations". Chapter Note 9(a) of the Chapter 21 reads "Heading No. 21.08, inter alia includes: (a) protein concentrates and textured protein substances; (b) preparations of use, either directly or after processing (such as cooking, dissolving or boiling in water, milk or other liquids), for human consumption". Sub-heading 2107.91 / 2108.90 covers other edible preparations not elsewhere specified and as such is residuary in nature. As per Rule 3 (a) of the rules of interpretation of Schedule-I, the heading which provides the specific description should be preferred to the heading providing a general description. 17. In Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. (supra) a three Judge Bench of this Court held that if a product cannot be brought under the specific entries in the tariff Act only then resort can be made to a residuary entry. It was held in para 3 as under:- "3. The question before us is whether the Department is right in claiming that the items in question are dutiable under tariff entry No. 68. This, as mentioned already, is the residuary entry and only such goods as cannot be brought under the various specific entries in the tariff should be attempted to be brought under the residuary entry. In other words, unless the department can establish that the goods in question can be no conceivable process of reasoning be brought under any of the tariff items, resort cannot be had to the residuary item". 18. To the same effect is the judgment in Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. (supra), it was observed in para 16 as under:- "16. One more aspect of the issue should be adverted to before we conclude. The, assessee is relying upon a specific entry in the tariff schedule while the department seeks to bring the goods to charge under the residuary Item No. 68. It is a settled principle that unless the department can establish that the goods in question can, by no conceivable process of reasoning by brought under any of the specific items mentioned in the tariff, resort cannot be had to the residuary item: See the Bharat Forge Case (supra). This certainly is not the position in this case, particularly in the light of the departments own understanding and interpretation of Item 26AA." 19. In Speedway Rubber Co. (supra) this Court observed in para 23 as under:- "23. We may notice that as per Rule 3(a) of the Interpretation Rules to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, "The heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description." 20. In C.C. (General), New Delhi (supra) it was observed in para 57 as under:- "57. There is still one more aspect which is relevant. It cannot be disputed and is not disputed before us and is also concluded by a decision of a three Judge Bench in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. that the basic heading is 49.01. It deals with "Printed books, brochures, leaflets and similar printed matter, whether or not in single sheets". 49.11 covers "Other printed matter, including printed pictures and photographs". Thus, specific or basic heading is 49.01 and residual entry is 49.11. Priority, therefore, has to be given to the main entry and not the residual entry. According to the Company, the case is covered by the main entry under 49.01 and in that view of the matter, one cannot consider the residual entry 49.11." 21. Since in the present case the product is covered under specific entry under Chapter 20 resort cannot be made to the residuary entry.22. The exclusionary note in HSN of Entry 20.08 of Chapter 20 of HSN is not applicable because it excludes the products consisting of mixture of plants or parts of plants (including seeds and fruits) of different species or consisting of plants or parts of plants which are not consumed as such but which are of a kind used for making herbal infusions or herbal "teas". In the present case the mixture prepared is of parts of plants, seeds and nuts which can be consumed as such. It would therefore be not applicable. Entry 14 of Chapter 2106.90 produced above would also be not applicable since in this case we are holding that the present case would be governed by Chapter 20 of the Tariff Act and not Chapter 21 of the Tariff Act. The Entry 14 referred to above is a part of Chapter 21 of HSN which corresponds to Chapter 21 of Tariff Act which is not applicable to the present case. 23.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]21. Since in the present case the product is covered under specific entry under Chapter 20 resort cannot be made to the residuary entry.22. The exclusionary note in HSN of Entry 20.08 of Chapter 20 of HSN is not applicable because it excludes the products consisting of mixture of plants or parts of plants (including seeds and fruits) of different species or consisting of plants or parts of plants which are not consumed as such but which are of a kind used for making herbal infusions or herbal "teas". In the present case the mixture prepared is of parts of plants, seeds and nuts which can be consumed as such. It would therefore be not applicable. Entry 14 of Chapter 2106.90 produced above would also be not applicable since in this case we are holding that the present case would be governed by Chapter 20 of the Tariff Act and not Chapter 21 of the Tariff Act. The Entry 14 referred to above is a part of Chapter 21 of HSN which corresponds to Chapter 21 of Tariff Act which is not applicable to the present case.The product under reference is a mixture of assorted vegetation and dry fruits and seeds. That different vegetations namely Khas Khas, Aswagandha & Brahmi Booti is turned into powder and processed in Khas Khas and giri badam (almond) oil and then the whole mixture is processed in sugar syrup under vacuum and thereafter choti illayachii (cardamom) and roof kewara are added as flavour. Since the product "Herbonic" is mixture of different vegetation it is rightly been classified by the Tribunal under Chapter 20. In Chapter 21 there is an entry reading as "Edible preparations, not elsewhere specified or included" under the particular heading "Miscellaneous Edible Preparations". Chapter Note 9(a) of the Chapter 21 reads "Heading No. 21.08, inter alia includes: (a) protein concentrates and textured protein substances; (b) preparations of use, either directly or after processing (such as cooking, dissolving or boiling in water, milk or other liquids), for human consumption". Sub-heading 2107.91 / 2108.90 covers other edible preparations not elsewhere specified and as such is residuary in nature. As per Rule 3 (a) of the rules of interpretation of Schedule-I, the heading which provides the specific description should be preferred to the heading providing a general description.