Chocolate-Coated Wafers Eligible For Concessional Duty | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

Concessional Rate Of Duty
Case Details: Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Bhopal vs. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 37 Centax 130 (S.C.) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Pamidighantam Sri NarasimhaAtul S. Chandurkar, JJ.
  • S/Shri N. Venkataraman, A.S.G., Ms. Snehashih Mukharjee, V.C. Bharathi, Udai Khanna, Gaurav Arya, Prashant Singh II, Advocates & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Petitioner.
  • S/Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Dhruv Tiwari, Ms. Mahak Mehra, Ms. Neha Choudhary, Ms. Medha Sinha, Ayush Agarwal, Ms. Nitum Jain, Swastik Mishra, Ms. Mehak Mehra, Advocates & Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee manufactured and cleared wafer products sold under brand names such as Perk, Ultra Perk, Perk Poppers and Wafer Uncoated Rejects. These products consisted of layered wafers coated or sandwiched with chocolate and blended with ingredients like sugar, edible and hydrogenated vegetable oil, milk solids, wheat flour, cocoa solids/butter, nuts, starch, salt and raising agents. The Department classified these goods under Central Excise Tariff Item 1905 32 11 on the ground that they were wafers containing chocolate and treated them as communion wafers, thereby denying concessional duty. The assessee claimed classification under Tariff Item 1905 32 90, contending that the goods were ordinary commercial snack wafers unrelated to communion wafers and eligible for exemption. The CESTAT accepted the assessee’s classification and allowed the concessional rate. During the Tribunal proceedings, the Revenue also attempted to raise new grounds which were not part of the show cause notice or adjudication order and without filing a cross-appeal. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

High Court Held

The Supreme Court has held that wafers coated or sandwiched with chocolate, sugar, oil, milk, flour, agents, etc. are entitled to concessional rate of duty. The said products neither have characteristics of ‘communion wafers’ nor used in Eucharist ceremonies. Therefore, they are classifiable under Tariff Item 1905 32 90 and entitled to concessional rate of duty under said notifications.

List of Cases Reviewed

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
Tobacco Products Assessable Under Section 4, Not 4A | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 28, 2026

Clandestine Removal Demand Set Aside For Lack Of Proof | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 27, 2026

No Review on Interest/Penalty If Duty Set Aside | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 24, 2026

Duty Demand Set Aside; Review Of Interest Penalty Invalid | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 23, 2026

Booking Speakers Via Agents Not Event Management | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 22, 2026

RCM Service Tax Refund Allowed Despite Registration Status | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 21, 2026

One-Day Delayed Payment Due To Tech Glitch Accepted | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 20, 2026

Adjudication Invalid After SVLDRS Acceptance | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 17, 2026

Excess Excise Duty Refund After 11 Years Attracts 12% Interest | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

January 12, 2026

[Opinion] Central Excise Act, 2025 Introduces New Tobacco Duties

Excise & Service Tax • News • Legal Beacon

January 9, 2026