Sealed retail packaging does not defeat the nil-duty exemption for ready-to-consume namkeen and similar preparations.

C.G. Foods manufactured and cleared Bhujia and Cheese Balls under the brand “WAI WAI” in sealed retail pouches. The goods were treated as classifiable under Tariff Item 2106 90 99; classification was not in dispute. For the earlier period, the appellant claimed the nil-rate exemption under Sl. No. 29 of Notification No. 03/2006-C.E.; for the later period, it claimed the corresponding exemption under Sl. No. 37 of Notification No. 12/2012-C.E.

The Department denied the claims, treating the goods as ready-to-eat packaged food under Sl. No. 30 of the earlier notification and, for the later period, finding them ineligible under Sl. No. 37 and unable to satisfy Sl. No. 38 because they were cleared in sealed containers. Seven adjudication orders confirmed aggregate duty of Rs. 1,14,65,663, with interest and penalties; the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld them. The Tribunal heard the seven appeals together.

Whether Bhujia and Cheese Balls, classified under Tariff Item 2106 90 99 and cleared in sealed retail packages, qualified for the specific nil-rate exemptions under Sl. No. 29 of Notification No. 03/2006-C.E. and Sl. No. 37 of Notification No. 12/2012-C.E.

Whether classification under Tariff Item 2106 90 99 excluded the goods from entries referring to Tariff Sub-heading 2106 90.

Sl. No. 29 of Notification No. 03/2006-C.E. and Sl. No. 37 of Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. prescribed nil duty for the specified products—including namkeen and Bhujia—and similar edible preparations in ready-for-consumption form, without imposing a sealed-container restriction.

A condition attached to a separate entry cannot be imported into an otherwise applicable specific entry, and a specific description governs over a more general or residual one.

Supplementary Note 6 to Chapter 21 recognises namkeen and Bhujia within Tariff Item 2106 90 99, which forms part of Tariff Sub-heading 2106 90.

The Tribunal also relied on Board Circular No. 841/18/2006-CX, which clarified that Sl. No. 30 of the 2006 notification applied to ready-to-eat packaged food not covered by Sl. No. 29; Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV, Final Order No. A/90159/2017-EB; and the Tribunal’s earlier decision in the appellant’s own case, Final Order No. 76771 of 2024.

Bhujia was expressly named in Sl. No. 37, and the Tribunal found no basis to subject it to Sl. No. 38’s sealed-container condition; it also followed its earlier ruling in the appellant’s own case on the same exemption entry.

For Cheese Balls, the Tribunal considered their composition, manufacturing process, savoury character, and ready-to-consume form, and held that they fell within the description of namkeen or similar edible preparations.

Packaging did not remove them from the specific exemption: under the 2006 notification, Sl. No. 30 operated residually for packaged foods not covered by Sl. No. 29; under the 2012 notification, the restriction in Sl. No. 38 could not be read into Sl. No. 37.

The goods’ classification under Tariff Item 2106 90 99 did not exclude them from the broader sub-heading 2106 90 or from the relevant exemption entries, provided they met the entries’ substantive descriptions.

It set aside the aggregate duty demand of Rs. 1,14,65,663 and the consequential interest and penalties, set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal, and allowed all seven appeals with consequential relief in accordance with law.