Tariff classification of sharbat syrup upheld under edible preparations heading, with exemption denied under the notification.

Sharbat Rooh Afza was held classifiable as a flavoured syrup under Heading 21.07, not as a non-alcoholic beverage under Heading 22.02, because its tariff description, Chapter Note 5(j), trade understanding, and common parlance treated it as a preparation to be diluted before consumption. On that classification, the product did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 2/94-C.E., which could not be used to shift goods into a different tariff heading. The note records a dissent that would have placed the product under Heading 22.02 as a beverage and allowed the appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Sharbat Rooh Afza was classifiable under Heading 21.07 as an edible preparation or under Heading 22.02 as a non-alcoholic beverage; (ii) whether the product was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 2/94-C.E. dated 1-3-1994.

Issue (i): Whether Sharbat Rooh Afza was classifiable under Heading 21.07 as an edible preparation or under Heading 22.02 as a non-alcoholic beverage.

Analysis: The product was found to be a flavoured and coloured syrup with a substantial sugar base, marketed and described as sharbat, and intended to be diluted before consumption. The tariff scheme and Chapter Note 5(j) of Chapter 21 specifically covered preparations such as flavoured syrups and syrup flavoured with fruit juices within Heading 21.07. The expression used in Heading 22.02 was read in its tariff context, and the product was held not to answer that description. Applying trade and common parlance, contextual interpretation, and the tariff notes, the product was treated as a preparation for beverages and not as the beverage entry itself.

Conclusion: The product was correctly classifiable under Heading 21.07 and not under Heading 22.02.

Issue (ii): Whether the product was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 2/94-C.E. dated 1-3-1994.

Analysis: The notification was construed as granting exemption only to goods falling within the relevant tariff entry. Since the product was held to be classifiable under Heading 21.07 and not under Heading 22.02, the claimed exemption could not be extended merely because of a change in the exemption structure. The notification did not operate to shift the goods from one tariff heading to another.

Conclusion: The product was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 2/94-C.E.

Final Conclusion: The majority upheld the departmental classification and denied the claimed exemption, leaving the assessee without relief in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise classification, the product must be placed in the tariff entry that fits its description in context and according to trade understanding, and an exemption notification cannot be used to move the product into a different tariff heading.

Dissenting Opinion: K. Sankararaman, Member (T), held that Rooh Afza was a non-alcoholic beverage falling under Heading 22.02 and that the appeal should be allowed. The dissent treated the expression "not including" as excluding fruit juices themselves, not beverages containing them, and preferred the more specific beverage entry over the general edible-preparations entry.

---