Chocolate-Coated Wafers Classified Under CETH 1905 32 90

By Centax

August 2, 2025

• 2 min. read

CETH 1905 32 90 chocolate wafers excise duty wafer classification reduced excise rate cocoa solids chocolate-coated wafers central excise

Case Details:Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal (2025) 32 Centax 348 (Tri.-Del)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Justice Dilip Gupta, President and
Ms. Hemambika R. Priya, Member (T)
S/Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Ms. Sukriti Das and Ms. Mehak Mehra, Advs., for the Appellant.
S/Shri Sanjay Jain, Special Counsel for the Department and
Bhagwat Dayal, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of wafer products coated or sandwiched with chocolate containing cocoa solids, sugar, and vegetable fat or oil, classified their goods under Tariff Item 1905 32 90 of the Central Excise Tariff. Claiming eligibility for reduced excise duty, the Appellant relied upon ‘Notification No. 3/2006-CE, dated 01-03-2006’ and ‘Notification No. 12/2012-CE, dated 17-03-2012’. The jurisdictional officer under CGST contended that the products were classifiable under Tariff Item 1905 32 11, which refers to chocolate-coated waffles and wafers, and accordingly denied the benefit of exemption. The Appellant submitted that Tariff Item 1905 32 11 pertains specifically to chocolate-coated communion wafers, and that the tariff structure must be read sequentially such that entries referring to chocolate-coated products are to be interpreted as sub-classifications of the immediately preceding entry for communion wafers, not as a direct sub-category of waffles and wafers. It was further contended that interpreting the tariff otherwise would render the classification entry for communion wafers redundant. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

CESTAT Held

The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee were not provided to the Government but to a private company. The construction was meant for profit/revenue generation and not predominantly for non-commercial use. The exemption available to the Government services would not be available to the sub-contractor providing services to a private contractor, even if the main contractor is exempt and the final service recipient is the Government.