AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompanying the reference order encapsulates the facts and circumstances in which the above question came to be referred for determination of this Court. The same is transcribed below for the convenience of reference: - "M/s. Nestle India Ltd is dealing in diverse consumer produce. One of them is Nescafe prepared Mix for vender machines the dealer is registered under Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The dealer had filed a petition before the Commissioner of Sales Tax for seeing determination on the rate of tax on "Coffee and Instant Drinks 'Nescafe Premix' sold vide invoice No. M 81-32779 dated 7.2.1998. It was argued before the Commissioner that in common parlance, the impugned product is known as "Instant Coffee". The product was nothing but instant coffee. Since Instant Coffee could be prepared by making the impugned product in hot water. The dealer argued that the impugned products to be covered under the Schedule Entry C-II-3 which specifically includes "Instant Coffee subject to 8% sales Tax. The Commissioner of Sales Tax observed that the impugned product is not instant coffee. The product contains ingredients like. i Soluble Coffee Powder 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....determination of tax rate for the respondent's product "Nescafe premix". There is no dispute that this product is used for preparing Nescafe through a vending machine by simply pouring hot water into the premix. There is also no dispute about the contents of the premix i.e. Soluble Coffee Powder 8.5%, Sucrose 54.0%, Partially skimmed milk powder 37%, Maltodextrin 0.5%. 6. Therefore, the question which arises for our determination is whether the above product could be classified under Entry C-II-3 thereby attracting tax of 8% or the same was classifiable under Entry C-II-18 (2), thereby attracting a tax of 16 %. 7. By judgment and order dated 8 December 1998, the Commissioner of Sales Tax determined that the product would be governed by Entry C-II-18(2). On an appeal, however, the tribunal, by its judgment and order dated 6 January 2001, referred the Commissioner, and held that the product was to be governed by schedule entry C-II-3. At the instance of the Sales Tax Department, however, reference was made to this Court under Section 61 of the Sales Tax Act to determine the above question. 8. Firstly, it was contended before us that the Commissioner was justified in holding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was being prepared by simply pouring hot water into the premix. The resultant product, in common parlance, was nothing but Nescafé. Entry C-II-3 includes not just "coffee" but also "instant coffee". Thus, in common parlance, this was nothing but an "instant coffee" prepared by pouring hot water into the premix. 13. The Tribunal has correctly reasoned that if the soluble coffee powder were to be withdrawn from the Nescafé premix, no matter what its percentage from the premix, then the perception of such a product in common parlance would be entirely different. Therefore, the Tribunal reasoned that once the final product after pouring hot water into the premix, at least, in common parlance was regarded as, "coffee" or "instant coffee", the product in question was liable to be classified under Entry C-II-3, which was a specific entry and not under Entry C-II-18(2) which was, a general entry in the context of powders from which non-alcoholic beverages are prepared. One of the fundamental tests in the matter of classification is that specific entries would prevail over the general entries. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Forge and Press Industrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the subject-matter of the statute would attribute to it. Resorting to rigid interpretation in terms of scientific and technical meanings should be avoided in such circumstances. Above such instances, unless, of course, the legislature has expressed a contrary intention. 17. On applying the commercial parlance or the popular meaning test, we are satisfied that the product in question was liable to be classified under Entry C-II-3, which was a specific entry dealing with "coffee" or "instant coffee" rather than the general Entry C-II 18(2). 18. In this context, I would also like to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. La Bella Products (1985) 59 STC 221. Here, the issue was whether "auto sticking bindies" sold under the name of "beauty spots", were to be classified as "toilet articles" or "toilet requisites", or they ought to be covered under the entry in respect of "kumkum", i.e. Entry 32 of Schedule A to the Bombay Sales Tax, 1959. 19. The Division Bench of this Court held that even if it was assumed that the beauty spots were toilet articles, merely on that ground, they do not cease to be 'kumkum' withi....