Per Archana Wadhwa : Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal.

2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri R.S. Srova, learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Shri M.A. Patel, Consultant appearing on behalf of the respondent, we find that the disputed issue in the present appeal is as regards the interpretation of the Notification No.3/06-CE, dt.1.3.06. Sr.No.28 of the said notification grants concessional rate of duty to the goods falling under Heading No.2106 and described as – 'Texturised Vegetable Proteins (Soya bari), and instant food mixes such as Pongal mix, Vadai mix, Pacoda mix, Payasam mix, Gulab jamnu mix, Rava Dosa mix, Idli mix, Dosai mix, Murruku mix, and Kesari mix.'

3. As the products being manufactured by the respondent are Gota Mix, Khaman Mix, Dal Wada mix etc., which are not specified by name in the above description, Revenue entertained a view that the same are not entitled to the benefit of the notification. Accordingly, demand for the period 1.3.06 to 29.1.07 was raised vide show cause notice dt.18.05.07 and confirmed by original adjudicating authority.

4. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order decided in favour of the respondent. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Revenue's only contention is that since the products manufactured by the respondent are not specifically mentioned in the above description of the goods, they cannot be held to be covered by the notification. On the other hand, it is the assessee's contention that the notification grants exemption to various instant food mixes and specific mention of certain products is only exemplary, as is clear from the use of expression 'such as'.

6. It is seen that Revenue in their memo of appeal has, otherwise, not disputed the fact that various products manufactured by the assessee are instant food mixes and are classifiable under Chapter 21. In fact, in their grounds, they had admitted that in general words 'such as' are illustrative in nature and similar items come within the ambit for exemption etc. as clarified by different Courts/Tribunals, but in the present case, the language used in notification is very specific. The use of word 'and' used before last item Kesari Mix indicates that the list of the goods ends there and no further item can be added. They have also referred to the speech of the Finance Minister for the year 2007-2008, which is to the effect that "I propose to fully exempt from Excise duty all kinds of food mixes including instant mixes. I can no longer be accused of being partial to idli, dosa mixes." From the above, Revenue contended that interpretation of 'such as' is exhaustive and will not cover the items which are not mentioned therein.

7. We find no merits in the above contention of the department. Admittedly, the notification exempts instant food mixes. The products manufactured by the respondent are nothing but instant food mixes. After exempting instant food mixes, the notification goes to further elaborate the same by giving exemptions to such mixes when it used expression 'such as'. As rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the word 'such' are defined as under:

"The word 'such' has been defined as 'of that kind, of the same or like kind'. Its meaning is given in the concise Oxford Dictionary is of the same kind or degree; of the kind of degree already described or implied in context. It is defined in the New Webster Dictionary as of the kind, character, degree or extent of that or those indicated or implied. Thus, the expression 'such as' used in Column (3) at Sr. No. 28 merely illustrates instant foods mixes and the enumeration, in my opinion, of the product which follows the expression 'such as' is therefore not exhaustive but is used to give examples."

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Good Year India Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Customs, Bombay 1997 (23) RLT 120 (SC)=1997 (95) ELT 450 (S.C.), has held tha