TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 164
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26 and Rs. 9,45,45,431 from M/s Britco Foods Company Ltd (now M/s Coca Cola India Pvt Ltd) for having cleared 'non-alcoholic beverage bases/concentrates' from 1st October 1997- 31st March 1998, 1st April 1998-30th June 1998 and from 1st July 1998 to 21st September 1998 on payment of duties of central excise at the rate prescribed for sub-heading 3302 10 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act. 1985 instead of sub-heading 2108 10 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. The respondent-assessee had been adopting this classification owing specific direction in circular no. 114/18/86-CX3 dated 24th March 1986 of Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC). Contending that Finance Act, 1995 had incorporated sub-heading 2108 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation exercise was academic in the light of the consequence being revenue neutral. 5. Considering the disposal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court without going into the rival entries in Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the impugned order may have been imprecise in its elaboration of the law as settled. The scope of appellate remedy is unambiguously clear - the challenge should be to an order for not being legal and proper - and solecism in articulation or inaccuracies of expression are not sanctioned as grounds for appeal. There is no doubt that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not render a finality to the dispute over classification but the Tribunal, indubitably, has. That finality can be shaken only by a reversal in the highest court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws.' which is no less relevant to appeals filed by Revenue upon instructions of statutorily empowered authorities. 6. The issue was resolved in the case of the respondent for the previous period in re Britco Foods Company Ltd thus '5. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts Ltd. 1995 (77) ELT 23 that since the tariff is based upon [HSN] the reference to the [HSN] in considering the scope and the meaning of the tariff heading would be justified. As we have indicated, both headings are based upon the Explanatory Notes. 7. The Explanatory Notes exclude from classification heading 21.08 preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages based on one or more odoriferous substances. Note 12 below heading 21.08 on which the Departmental Representative relies heavily, refers to preparations for the manufacture of lemonades or other beverages consisting, for example, of flavoured or coloured syrups with natural or artificial substances, of certain fruits or plants, of syrup flavoured with fruit juices w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred earlier, to heading 21.06 clearly excludes preparations for the food or drink industry based on odoriferous substances from that heading and put them under heading 33.02. The corresponding headings in the tariff are 21.08 and 33.02. It is not possible for us to agree that the condition in heading 21.08, that the goods must not be elsewhere specified or included and applies to the chapter and not the tariff. We must therefore approve the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that by description of the tariff heading these goods are classifiable under heading 33.02. Even if we were to agree that this is not the case, and there is in fact a dispute between the two headings, the fact that heading 21.08 is a residuary heading, would requ....