9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1354 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of Slice Mango and Slice Orange - Classification under CH 2202.40 or 2202.99 - exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE - Held that - During the period June 2002 to December 2002 appellant cleared the products Slice Mango and Slice Orange by classifying the same under 2202.90 claiming exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002. The entry of Tariff at CH. 2202.90 reads as fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks while the Heading under Chapter 2202.99 (the classification as claimed by the Revenue) is a residual entry which shows the description as Other . It is undisputed that the appellant s products are fruit juice based drinks and it is also seen from the records that the Revenue authorities did not draw any samples as to ascertain the ingredients of the said products. We find that the learned Counsel was correct in relying upon the judgement of this Bench in the case of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. (2008 (3) TMI 67 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) - Bench was seized with the issue of classification of the product which is juice based drinks. The entry which has been considered by the Tribunal was the same entry having the same description as is being disputed in the case in hand. Since the judgement of the Tribunal was contested in civil appeal by the Revenue before the Apex Court and the same was dismissed, we find that the issue is no more res integra and the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Classification of products "Slice Mango" and "Slice Orange" under CH 2202.40 for exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE versus classification under CH 2202.99 for levy of Central Excise duty @16% ad valorem without exemption.
Analysis: 1. Classification Dispute: The appellant claimed classification under CH 2202.40 for exemption, while the Revenue argued for classification under CH 2202.99 for duty levy. The appellant contended that their products were fruit juice based drinks, relying on CBEC Circular No. 309/25/97-CX and the Tribunal's judgment in a similar case. The Revenue cited Tribunal decisions in other cases to support their classification argument. 2. Legal Interpretation: The Tribunal examined the Tariff entries for CH 2202.90 and CH 2202.99, focusing on the description of "fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks" and "Other," respectively. Noting that the products were fruit juice based drinks and the Revenue did not verify the ingredients, the Tribunal referenced a previous judgment involving a similar product, "Appy Fizz," to support the classification under CH 2202.90. The Tribunal highlighted discrepancies between the Central Excise Tariff and HSN Explanatory Notes but upheld the classification under CH 2202.90 based on the product contents and supporting certificates. 3. Precedent and Final Decision: The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving a juice-based drink, where the classification under CH 2202.9020 was upheld against the Revenue's challenge. As the Revenue did not dispute the product contents and relied on certificates supporting the classification, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, considering the issue settled by previous judgments. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. In conclusion, the judgment resolved the classification dispute by analyzing the product contents, legal interpretations, and precedents to uphold the appellant's classification under CH 2202.90 for exemption, dismissing the Revenue's claim for classification under CH 2202.99 for duty levy. The decision provided clarity on the classification of fruit juice based drinks under the Central Excise Tariff, emphasizing the importance of product composition and supporting documentation in determining the appropriate classification for duty purposes.
|
