‘Ready Rotis’ Are Bread, Not Instant Food; Sets Aside Excise Duty Demand: CESTAT

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that “Ready Rotis” manufactured by Ready Roti India Private Limited are classifiable as bread under Tariff Heading 1905 and not as “instant food mixes/ready-to-eat foods” under Heading 2106. The bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that breads can be leavened or unleavened and that rotis, parotas and similar products are commonly described as Indian unleavened flat breads. The tribunal held that the principle laid down by the Kerala High Court in respect of Malabar parota applies equally to rotis. Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd. began manufacturing “Ready Roti/Halka Fulka” in September 2015. The company did not obtain Central Excise registration or pay excise duty, treating its product as classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Heading (CETH) 1905 90 90, which covers bread and bakery products attracting a nil rate of duty. Acting on intelligence that the company was manufacturing ready-to-eat packaged food liable to excise duty, departmental officers visited its factory premises on 30 November 2018. The packaging carried the declaration: “Now enjoy homemade like phulka’s anywhere in just 1 min – Ready to cook Rotis – 1 min Heat & Eat.” Based on the manufacturing process and usage, officers formed a view that the product was partially cooked and should be classified under CETH 2106 90 90 (food preparations not elsewhere specified), chargeable to duty at 12.5 per cent. A show cause notice dated 30 September 2020 proposed recovery of central excise duty of ₹8.33 lakh for the period September 2015 to June 2017, along with interest and penalty. The Assistant Commissioner adjudicated the notice, reduced the demand to ₹2.77 lakh after granting the benefit of exemption Notification No. 16/2012-CE, and confirmed interest and equal penalty. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, prompting the present appeal before CESTAT. The company contended that the show cause notice was time-barred, as the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement. Rotis are a form of unleavened bread and are commonly referred to as “Indian breads”. Appendix A to the FSSAI Regulations includes roti under “Bread and rolls”. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Modern Food Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, where Malabar parota was held classifiable under Heading 1905 as bread for GST purposes. Even if the rotis were partially cooked, they retained the essential character of bread and therefore fell under CETH 1905. The department argued that the product was not bread but “ready-to-cook rotis”, which are only partly cooked and require further heating before consumption. Since they were not known or sold as bread or bakery products, they were classifiable under CETH 2106. It was also submitted that the extended period of limitation had been rightly invoked. Addressing the Revenue’s objection that the product was not fully cooked, the tribunal relied on Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Central Excise Tariff, which provides that incomplete or unfinished articles are to be classified as complete articles if they possess the essential character of the finished product. The bench found that Ready Rotis clearly have the essential character of rotis, though they require a few more minutes of cooking before consumption. CESTAT concluded that Ready Rotis are correctly classifiable under CETH 1905 90 90, chargeable to nil rate of duty. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. Case Details Case Title: M/S Ready Roti India Private Limited Versus The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax, And Central Excise-Alwar Citation: JURISHOUR-11-CESTAT-2026(Del) Case No.: Excise Appeal No. 50670 Of 2025 Date: 17/02/2026 Counsel For Appellant: Priyamwada Sinha, Advocate Counsel For Respondent: Bhagwat Dayal, Authorised Representative Click Here To Read Order Read More: Infosys GSTN Portal Glitch Blocks Rule 14(5) Withdrawal Option Despite Compliance by Taxpayers

‘Ready Rotis’ Are Bread, Not Instant Food; Sets Aside Excise Duty Demand: CESTAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

Reassessment Notice Beyond 3 Years Invalid Without Rs. 50 Lakh Escaped Income: ITAT

Ease of Compliance, GST Reforms Drive Nearly 8 Lakh New Registrations in First Half of 2026

Rule 48(4) vs Rule 138A(1): GST E-Invoice Confusion Leading to Detentions of Goods in Transit

Common PCIT Approval for 111 Cases Shows Non-Application of Mind; Entire Reassessment Proceedings Invalid: ITAT

More like this

Reassessment Notice Beyond 3 Years Invalid Without Rs. 50 Lakh Escaped Income: ITAT

Ease of Compliance, GST Reforms Drive Nearly 8 Lakh New Registrations in First Half of 2026

Rule 48(4) vs Rule 138A(1): GST E-Invoice Confusion Leading to Detentions of Goods in Transit

About us

Company

Categories