2015 (5) TMI 286 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Held that - It is a matter of interpretation as to the meaning of the words juice concentrate , lime etc. On the contention that the PFA criteria was not under consideration in the Order-in-Original, we find that the Tribunal has discussed the matter with reference to a technical note produced by them during the course of arguments. There appears to be no mistake apparent on record. - Tribunal order did considered the judgment of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. (2008 (3) TMI 67 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) and distinguished it by stating that in the case of Parle the product Appy Fizz contained far more and higher significant percentage of apple juice i.e. 23%.- alone. The decision of the Tribunal is based on the totality of various factors including, most importantly, on the HSN Notes on which the Central Excise Tariff is based. There can be no objection to referring to the description given in the advertisement material because any consumer who buys the product would be guided by the description of the contents given on the packaging of the product. In this case, the description on the product did use the word Lemonade . Similarly when there is doubt as to the classification of a common product reference to a standard encyclopedia such as Britannica may be made for guidance and to remove doubts. - Rectification denied.

Summary

Issues: Classification of product MMNF under Tariff Sub-item 22021020.

Analysis:
1. Interpretation of PFA Rules/FSSA Regulations: The appellant argued that their product MMNF complies with PFA Rules and FSSA Regulations. They presented a test report to support their claim. However, the Tribunal found no apparent mistake on record regarding the classification based on these rules.

2. Non-Adherence to Settled Law: The appellant contended that a prior judgment involving Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. should have been followed as settled law. The Tribunal acknowledged this judgment but distinguished it based on the significant percentage of apple juice in the product in that case.

3. Reliance on External Sources for Classification: The appellant challenged the Tribunal's reliance on the definition of 'lemonade' from external sources like Encyclopedia Britannica and advertisement material. The Tribunal justified its decision, emphasizing that classification was based on various factors, including HSN Notes and consumer perception from product labeling. Reference to standard sources like Britannica was deemed acceptable to clarify classification doubts.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's Review Application, stating no apparent mistake in the record under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, a correction was made to replace 'juice content' with 'juice concentrate' in the Tribunal order. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering multiple factors for classification, including industry standards and consumer perception from product descriptions.