SHARE

| Dec-07-2021

Nimbooz classified under the category of fruit juice based drinks and not lemonade: CESTAT

In M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Excise [Final Order No. 70253/2021 dated November 10, 2021] Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (“CESTAT”) held that Nimbooz by 7 UP and Nimbus masala soda by 7 UP are classifiable under chapter heading 22029020 of the  First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (“the CET Act”) which is for category of fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks and thus M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is entitled to consequential benefits, in accordance with law.

The revenue disputed that during the period February, 2009 to December, 2013 these beverages are classified under chapter heading 22021020 and not under chapter heading 22029020, as claimed by the Appellant, and hence liable to excise duty as lemonade.

Hon’ble CESTAT, observed that similar issue had arisen earlier in the Appellant’s own case before this Tribunal and vide final order dated July 15, 2019, this Tribunal referred the order to the larger bench decision of this Tribunal dated April 30, 2019, – 2019 (29) GSTL 418 (L.B.) wherein it has been held that these goods under dispute are classifiable under tariff item No. 22029020, which is for the category of fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drinks.

Relied upon the ruling of the Larger Bench and Division Bench in the Appellant’s own case and allowed the present appeal.

Held that, Nimbooz by 7 UP and Nimbus masala soda by 7 UP are classifiable under chapter heading 22029020 of the first schedule to the CET Act, which is for category of fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks and thus the Appellant is entitled to consequential benefits, in accordance with law.

(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.

Similar reads

Appellant is entitled to interest from the date of deposit to the date of refund

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s BBM Impex Pvt. Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [Customs Early Hearing Application No.50414 of 2022 with Customs Appeal No. 51662 of

Dec-07-2021

Read More

Waiver of pre-deposit is not tenable on account of financial inability

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Prem Kumar Ojha v. Commissioner of Customs-Jaipur I [Customs Miscellaneous Application No. 50245 of 2022 dated July 04, 2022] held that, in view

Dec-07-2021

Read More

Excise duty cannot be demanded for clandestine removal based on third party evidence

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Shri Shyam Ingot & Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [Excise Appeal No. 52550 of 2019-SM dated August 08, 2022] held

Dec-07-2021

Read More

Arbitrary valuation of goods not subjected to BIS specifications is invalid

The CESTAT, Chennai in the matter of M/s. SK Enterprises v The Commissioner of Customs [CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 40017 of 2022 dated June 24, 2022] set aside and held that the revaluation of the goods

Dec-07-2021

Read More

EOU not entitled to claim refund of TED on its own, may avail of the entitlements of DTA supplier specified in FTP

The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sandoz Private Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2020 dated January 4, 2020] upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court that Export

Dec-07-2021

Read More