Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Be it mentioned here that this Court in its judgment dated 4th August, 1999 had stated that it falls within the term of heading 2201.90 and accordingly, set aside the order passed by the tribunal and further directed for consequential relief to follow. For the sake of completeness, paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said decision are extracted below:-

“7. The Tribunal would also appear to have concluded that the said sharbat was not a beverage but a preparation for the same. The fact that these tablespoonfuls of the said sharbat have to be added to a glass of water to make it drinkable does not, in our view, make the said sharbat not a beverage but a preparation for a beverage. Were that so, many beverages which are squash would not be beverages [See for example para 5 of this Court's judgment in the case of Parle Exports (P) Ltd. (Northern Industries vs. CCE (1988) 37 ELT 229 (Tribunal) and para 12 et seq. Of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Northland Industries (From the judgment and order dated 4.5.1995 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A. No.65 of 1994]. It seems to us that the phrase “preparations for lemonades or other beverages” in clause (j) of Note 5 of Chapter 21 was intended to refer to the industrial concentrates from which aerated water and similar drinks are mass produced and not to preparations for domestic use like the said sharbat.