Supreme Court reclassifies "Sharbat Rooh Afza" as non-alcoholic beverage, overturns excise authorities' classification.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. The product "Sharbat Rooh Afza" was classified under Tariff Heading 2202.90 as a non-alcoholic beverage, contrary to the excise authorities' classification under Heading 21.07. The Court clarified the distinction between beverages and preparations for beverages, emphasizing that the product itself is a beverage and does not fall under the category of preparations under Heading 21.07.

---

---

Issues involved: Classification of the product "Sharbat Rooh Afza" under Tariff Heading 2202.90 or Heading 21.07.

Classification under Tariff Heading 2202.90:
The appellant argued that the product falls under Heading 2202.90, which covers non-alcoholic beverages. The product contains invert sugar base, pineapple juice, and other extracts. The Tribunal's interpretation that the product does not fall under this heading due to the presence of fruit or vegetable juices was deemed erroneous by the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that only beverages with fruit or vegetable juices falling under Heading 20.01 are excluded from Heading 22.02.

Classification under Heading 21.07:
The excise authorities classified the product under Heading 21.07, which pertains to edible preparations not elsewhere specified. They relied on Note 5 of Chapter 21, which includes preparations for beverages like flavoured syrups and fruit juices. However, the Court noted that the product is a beverage itself, not just a preparation for one. The Court emphasized that the product does not meet the criteria of being "not elsewhere specified or included" under Heading 21.07.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. It was determined that the product "Sharbat Rooh Afza" should be classified under Tariff Heading 2202.90 as a non-alcoholic beverage, contrary to the excise authorities' classification under Heading 21.07. The Court highlighted the incorrect interpretation by the Tribunal and clarified the distinction between beverages and preparations for beverages.

---