Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. On the basis of discussion made here-in-above the contention of the appellant that its product 'Rooh-Afza' is a fruit drink and is covered in entry no. 103 of Schedule-II appended to the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 is here-by rejected.

18. In Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Delhi Vs. UOI AIR 1965 SC 1167, relied by learned counsel for the revisionist; the question involved was the validity of certain provisions of the Fruit Control Order 1955, which was enacted for the purpose of controlling the production, supply and distribution, and Trade and Commerce in, certain commodities in the interest of general public. In Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut 1999 (113)ELT 20(SC) relied by learned counsel for the revisionist, the controversy was whether "Sharbat Rooh Afza" falls within Tariff Heading 2202.90 or under Heading 21.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Considering the Tariff entries, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it falls within the terms of the Heading 2201.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, which is residuary entry of the items "beverages and Vinegar. In Parle Agro (P) Ltd.(supra), the controversy was with respect to classification of a Product "Appy Fizz" under Section 6(1)(a) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The relevant entry included non alcoholic beverages, fruit juice and aerated water etc. On the facts of that case and the relevant provisions of the Kerala VAT Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the word "aerated" has been used in scientific term in entry 2 under Section 6(1)(a) of the Kerala VAT Act and, therefore, the technical meaning of the word "aerated" can be looked into for finding out of the real import of the entry. The facts of the present case are entirely different. The entries of the Kerala VAT Act are not similar to the entry No.103 Part A of Schedule 2 of the U.P. VAT Act. On the facts of that case Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the product "Appy Fizz" is classifiable under item No.5 of entry 71 of the Kerala VAT Act, as amended by S.R.O. No.119 of 2008. Thus, these judgment relied by learned counsel for revisionist are clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case.