2000 (10) TMI 76 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of non-alcoholic beverage bases or concentrates under Central Excise Tariff.

Classification under heading 33.10 initially approved:
The appellant claimed classification under heading 33.10 of the tariff for goods described as non-alcoholic beverage bases or concentrates. The Assistant Commissioner initially approved this classification, dropping the duty demands for the relevant periods. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) later held that the goods should be classified under heading 21.08, leading to the appeals by the assessee.

Appellant's submissions:
The advocate for the appellant argued that the goods are preparations based on odoriferous substances, specifically covered by sub-heading 10 of heading 33.02. Reference to the Harmonised Commodity Description Coding System (HSN) supported this classification, ruling out classification under heading 21.06. The appellant also highlighted the department's previous stand on similar preparations being classified under heading 33.02.

Departmental Representative's response:
The Departmental Representative contended that the goods are edible preparations falling under Note 12 to Chapter 21. Heading 21.08, covering edible preparations "not elsewhere specified or included," was considered more specific due to the nature of the goods.

Explanatory Notes and classification considerations:
The Explanatory Notes excluded preparations for beverages based on odoriferous substances from heading 21.08, supporting classification under heading 33.02. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of resolving classification disputes based on the tariff itself, with reference to the HSN.

Decision and reasoning:
The Tribunal concluded that the goods should be classified under heading 33.02, agreeing with the Assistant Commissioner's classification. The unique compounded formulations of the goods did not warrant classification under heading 21.08, as they fell within the scope of chapter heading 3302.10.

Conclusion:
The classification determined by the Assistant Commissioner was upheld as correct, leading to the rejection of the duty demands.