TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stating the following:- "8. It is submitted that this is a fit case for grant an out of turn hearing, in respect of the present Appeal on the ground that the issue involved in the present Appeal is squarely covered in the case of M/s Brindavan Beverages Pot Las Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Delhi Road, Meerut, Hapur in Central Excise Appeal No. 50661 of 2015 [2019 (29) GST.L. 418 (T-LBJ and has been decided in favour of the assessee. It is submitted that the issue as present in the captioned appeal has been settled in favour of the Applicant by the decision of the Larger Bench of the CESTAT, Allahabad in Brindavan Beverages ( 9. It is further submitted that the said decision of Brinkman Beverages (supra) has atta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an appeal before Hon'ble CESTAT vide Appeal No E/1465/2011-Mum. The Hon'ble CESTAT in the order dated 27.08.2014 after considering the detailed submission given by the appellant in support of their classification of product held that: i) The product described in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is lime and not lemon. The two words are described different in Chamber's 21 Century Dictionary. However, even ignoring this point we note the requirement of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is that the total soluble solid should not be less than 10%. Whereas the appellant's technical note describes above states that the solid content of the juice is measure in terms of brix and the lemon juice brix is at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der has been accepted by Chief Commissioner Central Excise Zone-I The appellant aggrieved with the Hon'ble CESTAT order filed appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27-07-2015 admitted the appeal but did not grant stay on operation of final order of CESTAT dated 27- 08-2014." 3.2 From the above, it is evident that the issue involved in the matter is in regard to classification of "Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh". 3.3 As submitted by the counsel, the matter has been agitated before a Larger Bench of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has given favourable decision. Hence these applications for early hearing. 4.1 We find merit in the submissions of the counsel and allow the early hearing applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Lemon juice concentrate was only 1%. 22. Another Division Bench for the Tribunal at Allahabad, while hearing the Appeal filed by Brindavan Beverages found itself unable to agree with the reasoning given by the Mumbai Tribunal in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages. The Bench noticed the Tariff Item No. 2202 10 with a single dash was divided into three categories, including lemonade with Tariff Item No. 2202 10 20, while Tariff Item No. 2202 90 with single dash had four categories including Fruit Pulp or Fruit Juice based drinks with Tariff Item No. 2202 90 20. Thus comparison of the two Tariff Items falling under two separate single dash groups cannot be made for classification. In the first instance, six digit classification has to be arrive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alled lemonade. Though it has to be seen whether the product is essentially waters with added flavour or whether lemon juice is the basis of the fruit drink, but the answer also lies in the definition of "non-carbonated ready to serve fruit beverages" under Regulation 2.3.10 and "carbonated fruit beverages and fruit drinks" under Regulation 2.3.30. It would follow from these Regulations that even when lime juice is added but the fruit content of lime or lemon juice is not less than 5%, the product would be classified as fruit juice based drinks but if the lime or lemon juice content is less than 5%, then it would classify as lemonade. 67. Accordingly, the reference is answered as follows : The product "Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh (hereina....