2021 (10) TMI 528 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - Nimbooz - to be classified under CETH 2202 10 20 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under CETH 2202 90 20 under the category of fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks ? - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - A Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/S BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED, KRANTI KUMAR CHANDRAKAR, M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, HAPUR AND BAREILLY 2019 (10) TMI 762 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD (LB) has held that Nimbooz would be classifiable under CETH 2202 10 20 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The issue as to whether the Department was justified in invoking the extended period of limitation does not arise. The order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the Commissioner confirming the demand of differential duty for the normal period of limitation with interest and penalty, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of 'Nimbooz' under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Justification of invoking extended period of limitation.

In the case before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad, two Excise Appeals were considered arising from an order passed by the Commissioner confirming a demand of differential duty against a company for 'Nimbooz' removed during a specific period. The appellant, Aradhana Foods, contested the classification of 'Nimbooz' under CETH 2202 10 20, while the Department argued for classification under CETH 2202 90 20 as a 'fruit pulp or fruit juice based drink'. The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment by a Larger Bench in a similar case, where it was established that 'Nimbooz' falls under CETH 2202 10 20. Consequently, the issue of invoking the extended period of limitation was deemed irrelevant.

The Tribunal, based on the precedent set by the Larger Bench, classified 'Nimbooz' under CETH 2202 10 20, setting aside the Commissioner's order confirming the demand of differential duty for the normal period of limitation. As a result, Aradhana Foods' appeal was allowed, and the demand was dismissed. Since the demand was set aside, the Department's appeal was also dismissed. The judgment clarified the classification issue and emphasized the importance of adhering to the correct classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, ultimately leading to the favorable outcome for the appellant.