ORDER : Ruma Pal, J. The dispute in these cases is whether the "pan chutney" is classifiable under Tariff Heading (for short 'T.H.') 2103.11 or T.H. 2107.91 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. According to the appellant-assessee Pan Chutney is classifiable under T.H. 2103.11, which reads:- "Sauces, ketchup and the like and preparations therefor;" According to the Revenue-respondent, the item is classifiable under T.H. 2107.91 which covers "edible preparations not elsewhere specified or included". 3. The Tribunal had in Hari Chand Shri Gopal v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 1996(83) ELT 281 upheld the contention of the Revenue. As far as the impugned judgment is concerned, initially there was a difference of opinion between two Members. The Judicial Member differed with the conclusion expressed in Hari Chand's case (supra). The other Member in effect, followed the reasoning of the Judgment. The matter was referred to the third Member, who also agreed with the view expressed in Hari Chand's case (supra). 4. Pan Chutney is certainly edible. Therefore, it could be classified under the residuary item 2107.91 unless it was specifically covered by some other tariff heading. As the Judicial Member has himself noted, sauce or a ketchup is normally an accompaniment to food. Pan is not food although it may be edible. The Judicial Member's reasoning that Pan Chutney was not edible is, in our view, incorrect. A food is defined by the Judicial Member and with which we agree as "a substance which is taken into the body to maintain life and growth". 5. Sauce is generally taken as an accompaniment with food. 6. The use of the words "the like" in T.H. 2103.11 would not stretch to cover items other than accompaniments to food. Since Pan is not a food any accompaniment with it would not fall within T.H.2103.11. 7. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.