Tribunal upholds classification of REFRESH goods under Tariff Heading 2202.90, allows retrospective duty demand.

The tribunal upheld the classification of goods labeled as REFRESH under Tariff Heading 2202.90, following a prior decision and supporting explanatory notes and notifications. Regarding the retrospective demand raised, the tribunal allowed the demand for a past period of six months, rejecting the appellant's argument for prospective application based on relevant case law. The tribunal directed consideration of a notification under Section 11C for calculating duty demand, ensuring adherence to applicable notifications during the relevant period.

---

---

Issues: Classification of goods under Tariff Heading 2202.90, retrospective demand raised, applicability of notification under Section 11C.

Classification of Goods under Tariff Heading 2202.90:
The appeal concerns the classification of goods labeled as REFRESH. The Chartered Accountant representing the appellant concedes that the issue is settled against the assessee based on a prior tribunal decision. The tribunal previously ruled in a similar case involving the same party that goods like REFRESH fall under Tariff Heading 2202.90, not 2001.10. The tribunal referred to explanatory notes and a specific notification to support this classification. The tribunal reiterated its stance that fruit pulp-based drinks are correctly classified under CET 2202.90, in line with the explanation notes and Notification No. 87/91 issued for fruit-based drinks under Heading 2202.90.

Retrospective Demand Raised:
The appellant's Chartered Accountant argued that any demand should have been raised prospectively. Citing a judgment from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhiwani Textile Mills, the appellant sought to limit the demand to future transactions. However, the tribunal, in line with its previous decision and following the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd v. Asst. Collector of Customs & C.Ex., held that the demand could be made retrospectively for a past period of six months. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the demand for the prior period was justified based on the Supreme Court's decision.

Applicability of Notification under Section 11C:
The Chartered Accountant informed the tribunal that a notification under Section 11C was issued for part of the period in question. The tribunal directed the lower authority to consider this notification when calculating the duty demand, if it applies to the appellants. This instruction ensures that the duty demand is assessed taking into account any relevant notifications issued during the relevant period.

---