TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1410
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t.31-3-97, appellant's defence plea was that the base for manufacturing the beverage (drinks) i.e., Maaza orange and Maaza Pineapple drink is the fruit juice and not fruit concentrate. Other ingredients only contribute to the taste/preservation of the drinks but do not form base for such drinks. 1.2 Revenue alleged that Maaza Orange juice was received by appellant from its Bangalore Unit on stock transfer basis and using such juice, it had manufactured Maaza Orange and cleared the same without payment of excise duty claiming exemption under Notification No.3/2001 dated 1.3.2001 and Notification No.6/2002 dated 1.3.2002 as fruit juice based drinks. Appellant had also informed the Authority below that it was importing Authentic Aseptic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Notification illegally and had suppressed such facts to the department. In terms of the said letter, appellant informed that it was manufacturer of fruit juice based drinks with the brand name of Maaza and such drinks were Maaza Orange and Maaza Pineapple. 2. On the above fact and circumstances, learned Adjudicating Authority held that appellant was liable to pay excise duty of Rs. 3,76,561/- in terms of Rule 4, 6, and 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 and 2002, as the case may be, read with proviso to section 11A(1) of Central Excise act, 1944. So also holding that the appellant having contravened the provisions of Rules 4, 6 and 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, and also suppressed the fact of use of concentrates in the manufacture of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks. The goods in question manufactured by the appellant were using fruit pulp as well as fruit juice. That shall not be aerated water added with sugar or sweetening matter and flavoured as required by Tariff Heading 2202.99. Appellant also says that when the HSN Notes are read that gives a clear understanding that the appellant's goods were not at all aerated water with sugar and sweeting matter but were fruit pulp and fruit juice drinks. The nature of the goods manufactured by the appellant was known to the Department for which the adjudication suffers from bar of limitation. 5. Revenue on the other hand says that the goods were found to have been manufactured using the imported concentrates a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntrate were used to manufacture Maaza Orange and Maaza Pineapple drinks. Added to that, when the statement was recorded on 8.10.2002 from Shri Varadharajan, Assistant Manager, he stated that the appellant had claimed the exemption of the drinks under Notification No.3/2001 and 6/2002 claiming that they have been manufacturing the same out of fruit juice and fruit concentrate. He also explained that Maaza Orange is manufactured using the ingredients namely treated water, sugar, Maaza Orange concentrate and orange fruit (juice extract). Similarly, Maaza Pineapple drink is manufactured using the inputs namely treated water, sugar, Maaza Pineapple concentrate and pineapple fruit juice extract. He further stated that the Maaza Orange and Maaza P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and without demonstrating that the base was fruit pulp or fruit juice, it is bound to be classified under the Tariff Heading 2209.99. Had the appellant brought out a clear test report subjecting the goods to chemical test to rule out the allegation of Revenue that the same falls under Tariff Heading 2202.99, it could have a case to fall under tariff heading 2202.40. There was no fruit pulp or fruit juice used in the manufacture of drinks in absence of any purchase record produced before any of the Authority to prove purchase of fruit pulp or fruit juice was made by appellant for that purpose. Accordingly, the appellant is disentitled to the benefit of the exemption notification having subscribed its goods to Tariff Heading 2202.99. 10.....