2017 (3) TMI 1410 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 3/2001 and 6/2002 - Maaza Orange drink - Maaza Pineapple drink - assessee had claimed the exemption of the drinks under N/N. 3/2001 and 6/2002 claiming that they have been manufacturing the same out of fruit juice and fruit concentrate - Revenue Authority was of the view that although Orange fruit juice or Pineapple fruit juice were added to make aforesaid drinks the imported Authentic Aseptic Orange juice concentrate and Authentic Aseptic Pine Apple Concentrate were used in the manufacture of Maaza Orange Drink and Maaza Pine Apple drink - Held that - The import of an authentic aseptic pineapple concentrate and orange concentrate was not disclosed to the department. The use of the above ingredients in the manufacture of the drinks was not controverted in the adjudication. Nor that was controverted before Tribunal. Appellant established that without need of the above concentrates, no one shall import. Therefore that fact alone is enough to hold that concentrates were indispensable for use in manufacture of drink by the appellant - The appellant failed to show purchase of fruit pulp or fruit juice to use the same in the manufacture of drinks. There was no fruit pulp or fruit juice used in the manufacture of drinks in absence of any purchase record produced before any of the Authority to prove purchase of fruit pulp or fruit juice was made by appellant for that purpose. Accordingly, the appellant is disentitled to the benefit of the exemption notification having subscribed its goods to Tariff Heading 2202.99 - The test for determining classification of the goods under Tariff Heading 2202.40 is that the basis of the drink ought to be fruit pulp or fruit juice. The appellant having used the concentrate imported to manufacture its drinks and was deliberately classifying the same under a wrong entry, failed to meet the condition of the notification. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of Maaza Orange and Maaza Pineapple drinks under chapter heading number 2202.91 (or) 2202.99.
2. Liability to pay excise duty, penalty, and interest under Central Excise Rules, 2001 and 2002.
3. Classification of drinks under Tariff Heading 2202.40 or 2202.99.
4. Controversy over the nature of inputs used for manufacturing the drinks.
5. Failure to prove the use of fruit pulp or fruit juice in the manufacturing process.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of Maaza Orange and Maaza Pineapple drinks
The show cause notice alleged that the drinks were fruit concentrate based and should be classified under chapter heading number 2202.91 (or) 2202.99. The appellant argued that the base for manufacturing the drinks was fruit juice, not fruit concentrate. The Revenue contended that the imported concentrates were used in manufacturing, leading to the classification under 2202.99. The Tribunal found that the concentrates were indispensable for manufacturing the drinks, leading to classification under 2202.99.

Issue 2: Liability to pay excise duty, penalty, and interest
The Adjudicating Authority held the appellant liable to pay excise duty, penalty, and interest under Central Excise Rules, 2001 and 2002, for contravening provisions and misclassification of goods. The appellant's plea of exemption under Notifications No.3/2001 and 6/2002 was rejected due to the use of imported concentrates and failure to prove the drinks were fruit pulp or fruit juice based.

Issue 3: Classification under Tariff Heading 2202.40 or 2202.99
The appellant claimed that the drinks should be classified under Tariff Heading 2202.40 as fruit pulp or fruit juice based. However, the Revenue argued that the use of imported concentrates led to classification under 2202.99. The Tribunal concluded that without proof of using fruit pulp or fruit juice, the drinks were correctly classified under 2202.99.

Issue 4: Controversy over the nature of inputs
Investigation revealed the use of imported concentrates in manufacturing the drinks. The appellant failed to prove the use of fruit pulp or fruit juice. The Tribunal found that the appellant deliberately misclassified the goods, leading to the imposition of duty and penalty.

Issue 5: Failure to prove use of fruit pulp or fruit juice
The appellant's failure to demonstrate the use of fruit pulp or fruit juice in manufacturing the drinks resulted in the denial of exemption benefits. The Tribunal held that without evidence of using fruit pulp or fruit juice, the appellant's claim was baseless, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of Maaza Orange and Maaza Pineapple drinks under Tariff Heading 2202.99 due to the use of imported concentrates and the absence of proof of using fruit pulp or fruit juice in the manufacturing process. The appellant's failure to meet the conditions for exemption led to the imposition of duty, penalty, and interest, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.