2018 (1) TMI 261 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - whether or not the appellants are liable to pay Special Excise Duty (SED) on BIB as a compound preparation intended for use in the automatic vending machine? - The case of the appellant is that their product is a compound preparation for making non-alcoholic beverages and this automatically does not imply soft drink concentrate. Held that - Such compound preparation cannot become part of Heading 2106 90 19 even after applying Note 3 of 2nd Schedule. We find Notes 1 and 2 of the 2nd Schedule extracted (supra) will make it clear that the Chapter Notes and Supplementary Notes of the 1st Schedule shall apply to the interpretation of the 2nd Schedule. As such we find that valid and admitted classification of BIB under 2106 90 50 in terms of Supplementary Notes 4 of Chapter 21 of 1st Schedule cannot be included under Tariff item 2106 90 19 of 2nd Schedule - the respondents have correctly classified the items in question under tariff item 2106.9050 of first schedule and no SED payable by the respondents. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods for excise duty - Whether SED is payable on compound preparations for beverages.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against impugned orders regarding the classification of goods for excise duty. The respondents were engaged in manufacturing preparations for beverages using soft drink concentrate received from a company. The dispute arose when the Revenue contended that the goods should be classified under a different tariff item, leading to demands for Special Excise Duty (SED) from the respondents. The lower authorities confirmed the demand, but on appeal, the Commissioner set aside the demand. The main issue was whether SED was payable on the compound preparations for beverages manufactured by the respondents.

The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving a similar issue and analyzed the classification of the impugned product under relevant Chapter Notes. It was noted that the heading under which the goods were classified did not figure in the schedule for SED levy. The Tribunal emphasized the classification under the 1st Schedule and the Board's clarification regarding the same. It was highlighted that the product in question was a compound preparation for making non-alcoholic beverages, not a soft drink concentrate, warranting classification under a specific heading. The Tribunal found that the impugned order lacked proper analysis and was unsustainable, ultimately allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Based on the precedent decision and the analysis of the Tribunal in the previous case, it was concluded that the respondents correctly classified the items under the tariff item of the 1st schedule, where no SED was payable. The Tribunal upheld the classification of the goods under the specific tariff item, affirming that no SED was payable by the respondents. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the impugned orders were upheld, finding no infirmity in the decisions.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the classification of goods for excise duty purposes, emphasizing the specific nature of the compound preparations for beverages manufactured by the respondents. The analysis provided a detailed explanation of the classification under different tariff items and the applicability of SED, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals and upholding the decisions in favor of the respondents.