Holding

Roasted peanuts are classified under Chapter 20, Heading 20.01, while moongfali masala mazedar is classified under Chapter 21, Heading 21.01, and the duty on roasted peanuts must be recomputed after examining the price composition.

Summary

Amrit Agro Industries Ltd., a manufacturer of various namkeens, claimed that roasted peanuts and moongfali masala mazedar fell under Heading 21.08 and were therefore exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. The Central Excise Department accepted the exemption for aloo bhujia and chholey masala but classified roasted peanuts under Chapter 20, Heading 20.01 and moongfali masala mazedar under Chapter 21, Heading 21.01, denying exemption for the former. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the products, the process of roasting, and the applicability of the principle of predominance, concluding that roasted peanuts retain the essential character of nuts and belong to Chapter 20, while moongfali masala mazedar, being a deep‑fried mixture with obliterated germination capacity, belongs to Chapter 21. The Court also held that the show‑cause notice was within the six‑month period, so the extended limitation period was inapplicable. Regarding duty recomputation, the Court directed that the assessee must demonstrate whether the wholesale price includes a duty element before any exclusion can be made. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, the classification rulings were affirmed, and the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for recomputation of duty, with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

The correct classification of roasted peanuts under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975.
The correct classification of moongfali masala mazedar under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975.
Whether the principle of predominance applies to the classification of the two products.
The applicability of the extended period of limitation for the show‑cause notice.
The method of determining assessable value for roasted peanuts, i.e., whether the wholesale price is a cum‑duty price under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944.

Legislation cited

Central Excise Act, 1944s. Section 4(4)(d)(ii)
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975

Subjects

classificationcentral exciseroasted peanutsmoongfali masala mazedarexemptionheading 20heading 21principle of predominancerecomputation of dutycum-duty pricelimitation period

Judgment

A MIS AMRIT AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GHAZIABAD

MARCH 19, 2007

B. [S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975:

Schedule-Headings 20. 01 and 21. 08- 'Roasted peanuts'-
C Classification of-Held, essential structure of peanuts is not changed by
process of roasting-T.herefore, roasted peanuts are covered under Chapter
20-Notification No. 4197-C.E. dated 1.3.1997.

Recomputation of duty-Assessee claiming roasted peanuts under
D Chapter 21, availing exemption from payment of duty-Held, assessee will /
have to show as to how it determined the value-Whether price charged by
assessee contained profit element or duty element will have to be examined-
Matter remitted to adjudicating authority for recomputation of duty. .,_

Schedule-Headings 20.01and21.08-'Moongfali masala mazedar'-
E Classification of-Held, in the case of preparation of 'moongfali masala
mazedar ', preparation being very similar to 'bhujia ', principle of
predominance cannot be applied-The product falls under Chapter 21,
Heading 21.Ql, sub-heading 2108.99 and, therefore, assessee is entitled to
exemption-Notification No. 4197-C.E. dated 1.3.1997.

F Appellant-assessee, a manufacturer of namkeen like also bhujia,
chholey masala, roasted peanuts and 'moongfali masala majedar ', classifying r
all the four items as falling under Heading 21.08 as namkeen, claimed
exemption under Notification No. 4/97-CE dated 1.3.1997. The Revenue
accepted the claim with regard to chholey masala and aloo bhujia, but held
roasted peanuts and 'moongfali masala mazedar ', as falling under Heading
G 20.01, i.e., "Preparations of Vegetables, Fruits, Nuts and other Edible Parts
of Plants." According to the Revenue, in the process of roasting character of
a nut would remain intact, and similarly character of moongfali would not be
lost even after salting or frying it, and, therefore, roasted peanuts and
moongfali masala mazedar were classifiable under Heading 20.01.
H 62
J
AMRIT AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. "· COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GHAZIABAD 63
>· Partly allowing the appeals arising out of classification and allowing A
the quantum appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. A roasted peanut is not a product commonly known as
namkeen. It cannot be compared to bhujia. Roasted peanut is also a preparation,
however, it is a preparation of nuts like almonds, peanuts, ground-nuts etc. B
They are products which are prepared or preserved by processes like roasting.
The Tribunal ('CEGAT'') rightly accepted the classit1cation of roasted peanuts
under Heading 20.01. The Tribunal adopted a correct test when it says that
the essential structure of the peanut is not changed by the process of roasting.
The assessee merely applies salt to roasted peanuts which does not obliterate
the essential character. Moreover, roasting is a process. That process has C
not been excluded in Note l to Chapter 20. Therefore, roasted peanuts are
covered by Chapter 20. Even according to the Explanatory notes of HSN under
Heading 20.08 ground-nuts, almonds, peanuts etc. which are dry-roasted, fat-
roasted whether or not containing vegetable oil are the items which all would
stand covered by the said Heading 20.08. D
[Para 6 and 7) (66-C, F, G; 67-C, D]

2. In the case of 'moongfali masala mazedar ', the preparation is very
similar to bhzifia. Even according to the Department, a/oo bhujia falls under
heading 21.08. As regards 'moongfali maza/a mazedar', the principle of
predominance cannot be applied, particularly in absence of any Section Note E
or Chapter Note propounding the said principle. In this process the capacity
to germinate is obliterated. 'Moongfa/i masala mazedar' is the mixture of
material other than the nuts. It is an oil preparation. It makes use of gram
flour (besan). It undergoes the process of deep frying. When such a process
is applied one cannot apply the principle of predominance. In the F
circumstances, 'moongfali masa/a mazear' falls under Chapter 21, Heading
21.01, sub-heading 2108.99 and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to
exemption. (Para 8) (67-C-E)

3. As regards the Department invoking the extended period oflimitation,
it may be seen that at the instance of the Department, the assessee had filed G
a revised declaration on 19.11.1997. In the circumstances, the show cause
notice dated 5.5.1998 is within six months, consequently, the question of
extended period does not arise in the present case. (Para 9) (67-F] .

4. So far as the question of recomputation of duty with regard to roasted
peanuts is concerned, unless it is shown by the manufacturer that the price H
of the goods includes excise duty payable by him, no question of exclusion of
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A duty element from the price for determination of value under section 4(4)(d)(ii)
will arise. The assessee will have to show as to how he has determined the
value. What the appellant has really done in the instant case has to be
examined. Whether the price charged by him to his customers contains profit
element or duty element will have to be examined. This examination is
B warra·nted because, in the present case, one cannot go by general implication
that the wholesale price would always mean cum<duty price, particularly when
the assessee had cleared the goods during the relevant years on the basis of
the above exemption notification dated 1.3.1997. The matter is remitted to the
adjudicating authority for recomputation of duty on the principles enumerated
in the judgment. (Paras 14 and 16) (69-G; 70-B-C]
c
Commissioner ofCentral Excise, Delhi v. Maruti Udyog Ltd, (2002) 141
ELT 3 and Srichakra Tyres Ltd. v. Collector ofCentral Excise, Madras, (1999)
. 108 ELT 361, held inapplicable.

. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Bata India Ltd, (1996) 84 ELT 164,
D relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.8595-8596 of 2001.

From the Final Judgment and Order No. 177-178/2001 dated 10.09.2001
E of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in
Appeal No.E-1120-112112001-D.

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 1459-1460 of2002.
F P.C. Jain, Rophina Nath, Javaid Muzaffar and Umesh Kumar ~aitan for
the Appellants.

V. Shekhar, Sweta Garg, B. Krishna Prasad, S. Ganesh and Sudhir Kr.
Sajwan for the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KAPADIA, J: Civil Appeal Nos. 8595-8596/200 I:
I. These civil appeals are filed by the assessee under section 35L of the ·\
H Central Excise Act, 1944 against decision dated 10.9.2001 passed by CEGAT.
The short question which arises for determination is the classification of
'
)~-

AMRIT AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. ,._ COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GHAZI ABAD [KAPADIA, J.] 65
-~
>.
'roasted peanuts' and 'moongfali masala mazedar' under the Schedule to the A
Central Excise Tariff Act and consequential demand for duty of excise.

. 2. The Appellant-assessee manufactures namkeens like a/oo bhujia,
chholey mr;isala, roasted peanuts and moongfa/i masa/a mazedar. Appellant
claims that all the four items fall under Heading 21.08 as Namkeen. The
Appellant claims that accordingly all the four items are exempted vide B
Notification No. 4/97-C.E. dated 1.3.1997. In that declaration/classification.
_,

-
with effect from 1.3 .1997, they declared all the above items as namkeens. They
relied upon Heading 21.08 which refers to namkeens such as bhujia and
chabena. The Appellant started production of two out of four items
abovementioned, namely, roasted peanuts and moongfa/i masala rnazedar
only in July and September, 1997 respectively. Prior to the above dates, they
c
were in the business of manufacturing chho/ey masala and a/oo bhujia.

3. At this stage, we may clarify that the Department has accepted the
claim of the appellant that chholey masala and aloo bhujia fell under Heading
'namkeen' under 21.08. The appellant has been given exemption benefit D
accordingly. Therefore, in the present civil appeals there is no dispute regarding
chho/ey masala and aloo bhujia.

4. It is the case of the Department that roasted peanuts and rnoongfali
rnasa/a mazedar are the two items which do not fall under Heading 21.08. It
is the case of the Department that Chapter 21 deals with Miscellaneous Edible E·
Preparations. It is the case of the Department that chholey rnasala and aloo
bhujia fall under Chapter 21, but not roasted peanuts and moongfali rnasa/a
mazedar. According to the Department, roasted peanuts and moongfa/i rnasala
mazedar are the two items which will fall under Heading 20.01 in Chapter 20.
According to the Department, Chapter 20.0 I deals with Preparations of
., Vegetables, Fruit, Nuts and Other Edible Parts of Plants. According to the
F
Department, in the case of roasted peanuts, the character of a nut remains
intact. According to the Department, in the present case, the assessee appli~s
salt on the peanuts, thereafter, the assessee roasts peanuts which are then
put in a container. Therefore, according to the Department, in the process of
roasting the character of a nut remains intact. According to the Department, 0
a roasted peanut is a preparation from the peanut. Accordingly, the Department
sought to classify roasted peanuts under Heading No. 20.01.

5. As regards moongfali masa/a mazedar, the same test is souoht I:>
to
be applied by the Department saying that an essential character of moongfali
H
\
\
_,.J__

66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4. S.C.R.

A is not lost even when it is salted and fried, therefore, according to the
Department, roasted peanuts and moongfali masala mazedar are the items
classifiable under Heading 20.01.

6. Having gone through the records and having examined the process
undertaken by the assessee, we are in agreement with the view expressed by
B · the Tribunal ("CEGA T'') regarding classification of roasted peanuts under
Heading 20.0l. The Tribunal had adopted a correct test when it says that the
essential structure of the peanut is not changed by the process of roasting.
The assessee merely applies salt to roasted peanuts which does not obliterate
the essential character. Moreover, roasting is a process. That process has not
C been excluded in Note l to Chapter 20. Therefore, roasted peanuts are covered
by Chapter 20. Even according to the Explanatory notes of HSN under Heading
20.08 ground-nuts, almonds, peanuts etc. which are dry-roasted, fat-roasted
whether or not containing vegetable oil are the items which all would stand
covered by the said Heading 20.08.

D 7. According to the appellant-assessee, roasted peanuts would fall
under Chapter 21Miscellaneous Edible Preparations. In this connection, reliance
is placed by the appellant on Heading 21.08 which refers to Edible pn:parations,
not elsewhere specified or included. Learned counsel in particular also relies
upon sub-heading 2108.99 Other. According to the appellant, roasted peanut
falls under ·Heading 21.01, hence they are entitled to exemption. Learned
E counsel for the appellants further submits that in the following year 1998-99
Chapter Note no. l 0 was modified to include products commonly known as
namkeens, mixtures, bhujia, chabena or by any other name. According to
Chapter Note no. I 0, such products shall remain classifiable under sub-
heading 2108.99 and, therefore, the appellants were entitled to the~ benefit of
F exemption notification. We do not find any merit in this contention. Firstly,
a roasted peanut is not a product commonly known as namkeer;. It cannot
\
be compared to bhujia. In the case of bhujia, e.g., not only salt but even
masala, salt, gram flour are some of the ingredients which are used in the
preparation of bhujia. Therefore, a roasted peanut cannot be compared to a
bhujia. Similarly, a roasted peanut is not only known in the market as a bhujia
G or chabena. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the contentions raised
on behalf of the appellant-assessee. As stated above, roasted peanut is also
a preparation, however, it is a preparation of nuts like almonds, peanuts,
ground-nuts etc. They are products which are prepared or p:reserved by
processes like roasting. As stated above, roasting is not chilling, it is not
H freezing. As stated above, roasting is not one of the enumerated processes
(

J
AMRIT AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. v. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE. GHAZIABAD [KAPADIA, J.J 67

in Chapter Note No. l to Chapter 20. Heading 20.0l specifically refers to A
preparations of vegetables fruit, nuts or plants. Sub-heading 200 l .90 refers to
the word 'Other'. In the circumstances, we are in agreement with the view
expressed by the Tribunal that roasted peanut falls under Chapter 20 and not
under Chapter 21.

8. As regards moongfali masala mazedar, the Department has adopted B
the same test to say that even in the case of the said item the basic character
of moongfali is not altered. This view is erroneous. We have examined the
process. In the case of moongfali masala mazedar, the preparation is very
similar to bhujia. As stated above, even according to the Department aloo
bhujia falls under heading 21.08. In the case of moongfali masala mazedar, C
the principle of predominance cannot be applied, particularly in absence of
any Section Note or Chapter Note propounding the said principle. In this
process the capacity to germinate is obliterated. Moongfali masala mazedar
is the mixture of material other than the nuts. It is an oil preparation. It makes
use of gram flour (besan). It undergoes the process of deep frying. When
such a process is applied one cannot apply the principle of predominance. D
The only difference between a/oo bhujia and moongfali masa/a mazedar is
that in the former case the namkeen is essentially made of aloo whereas in
the later case it is a namkeen essentially made from a pulse (dal). Pulse can
be chana, malka, masoor, moong, urad etc .. All these products are only known
as namkeens in the market. In the circumstances, we are of the view that E
moongfali masala mazedar falls under Chapter 21. It falls under Heading
21.01, sub-heading 2108.99 and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption.

9. In the present matter, one of the points which arises for determination
is whether the Department was entitled to invoke the extended period of
limitation. Although, the courts below have examined the said question, they F
have lost sight of an important fact, namely, that at the instance of the
Department, the assessee had filed a revised declaration on 19.11.1997, in the
circumstances, the show cause notice dated 5.5.1998 is within six months,
consequently, the question of extended period does not arise in the present
case.
G
10. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed with no order as to
costs.

Civil Appeal Nos. 1459-146012002

l l. These appeals are a sequel to the appeals decided today by us H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R. ;
-<..
A being Civil Appeal Nos. 8595-8596/200 I.

12. In our judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 8595-8596/2001, w1e have held
that roasted peanuts unlike moongfali m.asala mazedar is a preparation
falling under sub-heading 2001.90 of Chapter 20. To that extent, we have held
in favour of the Department. Consequently, the question which arises in
B present Civil Appeal nos. 1459-1460/2002 is whether the price charged by the
assessee, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has to be considered
~
as cum-duty price. Essentially these civil appeals are quantum appeals. It is
the case of the Department in the present civil appeals that all throughout the
years the assessee has claimed that roasted peanuts came under Chapter 21
...
c and, consequently, the said item stood exempted from payment of duty under
above exemption notification dated 1.3.1997. Therefore, according to the
Department, ail these years the assessee had cleared the goods on the footing
that roasted peanuts were exempted. They have filed the requisite declaratio.ns/
classifications on that basis. According to the Department, since the assessee
had cleared roasted peanuts without ·payme~t of duty during the relevant
D years, the quantum of duty is required to be recomputed. According to the
Department, in the normal case where the assessee does not seek exemption
or in cases where goods are not exempted, the quantum of duty has got to
be recomputed oh the basis' of"cum-duty price". According to the Department,
the reasoning behind recomputation based on cum-duty price is that ordinarily
the basis for levy of excise duty is the normal price.· That normal price
E
includes the duty element. Such price is called cum-duty price. Therefore, in
such cases, when the quantum of duty is required to be recomputed it has
to be done on the basis of cum-duty price. In, this connection, the law is well
settled as held by this C~urt in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v.
Maruti Udyog Ltd, reported in (2002) 14 l E.L. T. 3. In the said judgment, it
F has been held that the sale price realised by the assessee is the entire price
inclusive o(excise duty, when the assessee has by necessary implication, '
taken on the liability to pay all taxes on the goods· sold and has not sought
to realise any some in addition to the price obtained by it from the buyer. In
the said case, it has been held that when the assessee has charged cum-duty
price, then in arriving at the assessable value of the goods, the element of
G duty payable has to be excluded. To this extent, there is no difficult:r. However, -~

in the present case, the Department contends that there is no question of
implication when throughout the relevant years the assessee has been clearing
the goods on the basis of the exemption notification of 1997, referred to
above, which is not applicable to roasted peanuts, and, therefore, according
·H to the Department, the above judgment of this Court in the case of Maruti
J
AMRIT AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. "· COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GHAZI ABAD [KAPAD1A, J.] 69

)-
Udyog Ltd. has no application to the facts of the present case. A
13. On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of the assessee that the
basis for levy of excise duty under section 4(4)(d)(ii) of Central Excises & Salt
Act, 1944 is the wholesale price. According to the assessee, that price will
include the element of duty payable because such duty forms part of the
consideration for sale of the goods according to the terms and conditions of B
sale of such goods and, therefore, whenever a further demand of duty is
.-J
created against the assessee and such further demand of duty cannot be

- passed on to a customer in view of the stipulations of the terms and conditions
of sale between the assessee and his customer, the original consideration
(including duty, if any) received by the assessee for sale in wholesale trade
has to be taken as cum-duty price. In this connection, reliance is placed by
c
the assessee on the judgment of the Tribunal in Srichakra Tyres Ltd v.
Collector o/Central Excise, Madras reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361.

14. In our view, the above judgments in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd.
and Srichakra Tyres Ltd. have no application in the facts of the present case. D
In the case of Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Bata India Ltd reported
in (1996) 84 ELT. 164 this Court held that under section 4(4)(d)(ii) of Central
-1 Excises and Salt Act, 1994 the normal wholesale price is the cum-duty price
which the wholeseller has to pay to the manufacturer-assessee. The cost of
production, estimated profit and taxes on manufacture and sale of goods are
usually included in the wholesale price. Because the wholesale price is usually E
the cum-duty price, the above section 4(4)(d)(ii) lays down that the "value"
will not include duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any, payable on
the goods. It was further held that if, however, a manufacturer includes in the
wholesale price any amount by way of tax, even when no such tax is payable,
then he is really including something in the price which is not payable as F
duty. He is really increasing the profit element in another guise and in such
a case there cannot be any question of deduction of duty from the wholesale
price because as a matter of fact, no duty has actually been included in the
wholesale price. It was further held that the manufacturer has to calculate the
value on which the duty would be payable and it is on that value and not
the cum-duty price that the duty of excise is paid. Therefore, unless it is G
shown by the manufacturer that the price of the goods includes excise duty
payable by him, no question of exclusion of duty element from the price for
1 determination of value under section 4( 4)(d)(ii) will arise.

15. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case the judgment
H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007} 4 S.C.R.

A of this Court in the case of Bata India Ltd (supra) on principle would apply.
Therefore, in the present case, the assessee will have to show as to how he
has determined the value. What the appellant has really done in the instant
case has to be examined. Whether the price charged by him to his customers
contains profit element or duty element will have to be examined. As stated
above, this examination is warranted ·because, in the present case, one cannot
B go by general implication that the wholesale price would always mean cum-
duty price, particularly when the assessee had cleared the goods during the
relevant years on the basis of the above exemption notification dated I .3. I997.

16. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the matter 1is remitted to
C die adjudicating authority for recomputation of duty on the principles
enumerated hereinabove. There· will be no order as to costs.

RP. Appeals allowed.