Specific tariff classification prevails over residuary entry for beverage bases, while earlier appellate ruling remains binding unless reversed on merits.

Non-alcoholic beverage bases and concentrates were discussed as goods for tariff classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The analysis applied the tariff scheme, HSN explanatory notes, and the product nature to support classification under heading 3302.10 for preparations used in the food and beverage industry. It also noted that a residuary entry under heading 2108.10 could not prevail where a specific heading covered the goods. The text further states that an earlier appellate classification ruling remained operative and should not be disregarded by lower authorities, because the Supreme Court had not decided the classification merits and had dismissed the Revenue appeal on revenue neutrality.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned non-alcoholic beverage bases/concentrates were classifiable under heading 3302.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 rather than under heading 2108.10, and whether the demand of duty could survive in view of the earlier appellate determination.

Analysis: The dispute turned on tariff classification of the product. The earlier Tribunal decision had examined the tariff scheme, the HSN-based explanatory notes, and the nature of the goods, and had held that preparations of this kind used in the food and beverage industry fell under heading 3302.10. The order under challenge proceeded on the footing that the matter stood settled by the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court had only dismissed the Revenue appeal on the basis of revenue neutrality and had not decided the merits of classification. Even so, the Tribunal noted that its own earlier classification ruling remained operative and could not be ignored by the lower authorities. The reasoning also applied the principle that residuary classification under heading 2108 could not displace a specific tariff entry where the goods were otherwise covered.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under heading 3302.10, and the duty demand was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the impugned demand could not be revived against the classification already upheld at the appellate level, and the Revenue did not establish any basis to depart from that settled position.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a specific tariff heading covers the goods on the basis of their description and explanatory notes, a residuary heading cannot be preferred, and lower authorities must follow the binding appellate classification unless it is reversed by a higher court on merits.

---