2003 (1) TMI 573 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of duty confirmed for including the value of straw in fruit juice.
2. Contention regarding the essentiality of straw in the final product.
3. Challenge on the point of limitation.
4. Appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
5. Interpretation of previous Tribunal decisions regarding the inclusion of straw value in the assessable value of the product.

Issue 1: Demand of Duty Confirmed for Including the Value of Straw in Fruit Juice:
The demand of Rs. 4.10 lakhs was confirmed against the appellants for including the value of straw in the fruit juice named "FROOTI." The duty demand was for the period from 4-4-89 to 10-9-91 based on a show-cause notice issued on 31-12-92.

Issue 2: Contention Regarding the Essentiality of Straw in the Final Product:
The appellants argued that the straw is not an essential part of the fruit drink and is provided to facilitate a specific style of drinking FROOTI. They contended that the product can be consumed without the straw, as indicated by the packaging instructions. The Assistant Commissioner accepted this argument and dropped the demand against the appellants. However, the Revenue appealed this decision, leading to the present appeal.

Issue 3: Challenge on the Point of Limitation:
The appellants challenged the demand on the grounds of limitation, which was not explicitly addressed in the detailed analysis provided.

Issue 4: Appeal Against the Order Passed by the Assistant Commissioner:
The Revenue appealed the Assistant Commissioner's decision to drop the demand, leading to the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. This set the stage for the current appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue 5: Interpretation of Previous Tribunal Decisions:
The appellants cited previous Tribunal decisions where it was held that the straw supplied with fruit juice, including FROOTI, is optional and not an integral part of the product. They relied on cases like Parle Beverages Ltd. and Venkatesh Beverages Ltd. to support their argument. The Commissioner (Appeals) distinguished these cases by noting the difference in the percentage of straw supplied with the products. However, the Tribunal found that the issue was squarely covered by the previous decisions and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.

This comprehensive summary provides a detailed analysis of the judgment, addressing each issue involved in the case while maintaining the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text.