The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the goods are not liable for confiscation even if the bulk packages did not contain any details of the manufacturer under section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Unik Traders, the appellant assessee appealed against the order of adjudicating authority for confiscation of goods and challenging the redemption fine and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority.
B. Satish Sundar and Dr. S. Krishnanandh, the counsels for the assessee contended that in respect of food additives, there was no such requirement especially when imported in bulk for labelling requirements every package of food shall carry the label mentioning the name of the food, nutritional information, declaration regarding veg or non-veg, name and complete address of the manufacturer.
It was further submitted that the imposition of penalty by the adjudicating authority for the confiscation of goods was not sustainable and liable to be deleted.
R. Rajaraman, the counsel for the department relied on the decisions made by the lower authorities and contended that according to rule 32 (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the name and complete address of the manufacturer and the importer should be mentioned on each of the bags that contain the food items.
The bench observed that the goods had been released after rectifying the deficiency and on fulfillment of the conditions and it was clear that the confiscation of goods cannot sustain.
The two-member bench comprising Sulekha Beevi C.S (Judicial) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical) held that the redemption fine and penalties imposed are required to be quashed while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
