C.N.B. Nair, Member (T) - (1.)The dispute is about classification of two products, namely, Rasgulla and Peda manufactured by the appellant. The assessee claimed classification under Heading 21.08, which is for "Edible preparations, not elsewhere specified or included". Under the impugned order, it has been held that correct classification would be under Heading 1704.90 which is for "Sugar confectionery (including white chocolate), not containing cocoa".
(2.)The claim of the appellant was based on Note No. 10 to Chapter 21. That note reads as under : -
"10. Sub -heading Nos. 2108.90 and 2108.99 include sweet meats commonly known as 'Misthans ' or 'mithai' or by any other name. They also include products commonly known as 'namkeens' 'mixtures', 'bhujia', 'chabena' or by any other name. Such products "remain classified in these sub -headings irrespective of the nature of their ingredients".

During the hearing of the case, learned Counsel submitted that the purpose of this note is to place all 'mithai' and 'namkeens' under Tariff Heading 2108. It is bemg pointed out that the note removes any doubts or possible conflict about the classification, inasmuch as in the absence of the note, the items could have fallen under sugar preparation also since sugar pre -dominated (about 57%) by weight in the products.

(3.)Learned SDR has taken us through the order and other materials to show that the items manufactured by the assessee could not be called Rasgulla at all inasmuch as Rasgulla is never produced without curdling milk and chabena is an ingredient.