TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1445
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red in the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case noticeable from the Order-in-Appeal are that the Appellant, a contract packaging company (franchisee bottler) to Coca Cola company, manufactured and cleared a produce named 'Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh' (MMNF, for short) under Central Excise Chapter Heading 22029020 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1985 as 'Fruit pulp' or 'Fruit juice based drink'. The officers of DGCEl investigated the classification of 'Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh' and alleged that 'Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh' merited classification under Central Excise Tariff Heading 22021020 as 'Lemonade'; that as a consequence, the abatement claimed by the Appellant under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax 478 (Tri.-Mum.)] and hence, dismissed the Appeal on merits. The First Appellate Authority has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaishri Engineering Company (P) Limited Vs CCE [1989 (40) ELT 214 (SC)] and Tribunal decision in CCE Pune Vs Thermax (P) Limited [1994 (70) ELT 247 (Tribunal) and few other Tribunal decisions to reject the contention of the Appellant that the extended period of limitation was invoked without any justification. 4. We have heard Shri N.K. Bharath Kumar, ld. Chartered Accountant for the Taxpayer-Appellant and Smt. G.Krupa learned Departmental Representative defended the impugned order; we have carefully considered rival contentions, documents placed on record, written submissions and the ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench (supra) which has been followed by various Benches of the Tribunal, we find that the assertion of the ld. Chartered Accountant to be true as the ratio in question has been laid to rest by the Larger Bench. Relevant Paras of the Tribunal's Mumbai Bench in the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which followed the Larger Bench decision are extracted as under : 5.2 We find that the issue involved in the present case is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (29) GSTL 418 (Tri.-LB)]. Taking note of the difference in the opinions, following issue was taken up for consideration by the Larger Bench:- "21. The Division Bench of the Tribunal at Mumbai ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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 arrived at and then it has to be proceeded by arriving at eight digit classification. This process was not adopted by the Mumbai Tribunal in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages and, therefore, it expressed its disagreement. According to the Bench, the product in question was lemon juice based drinks and, therefore, would fall under Tariff Item No. 2202 90 20." 5.3 The decision referred by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order has not been agreed by the Larger Bench and the Larger Bench has answered th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss 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 (hereinafter referred to as MMNF) manufactured by Brindavan Beverages Private Limited, and 7up 'Nimbooz Masala Soda' or 7up 'Nimbooz' manufactured by Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited are classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 90 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule under the category of 'fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks". 5.4 Further, by final order No. 71374-71377/2019 dated 15.07.2019, the Tribunal has followed the Larger Bench and observed as foll....