Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. In rejoinder, the ld. Advocate stated that the Tribunal decision in the case of Parle Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1988 (33) E.L.T. 445 (Tribunal) has been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Park Exports Pvt. Ltd., 1988 (38) E.L.T 741 (SC). As regards the dictionary meaning of the term 'beverage', he stated that as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Paper Company, 1988 (37) E.L.T. 480 (SC), the dictionary meaning was not always safe, and that help could be taken from other enactments, as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Leuko Plast India Ltd. v. State of Goa, 1988 (36) E.L.T. 369A (Bombay). As regards the HSN Explanatory Notes, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of AMCO Batteries v. Collector of Central Excise, 1993 (63) E.L.T. 534 (Tribunal) to say that when the language of the Tariff was clear, the HSN Explanatory Notes could not be pressed into service.

13. The classification of the goods as described in the Central Excise Tariff has to be determined according to the general usage and known denominations of the Trade. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Parle Exports Pvt. Ltd., 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (SC), the expressions in the Tariff Schedule have to be understood by the language employed therein bearing in mind the context in which the expressions occur (para 12). The Supreme Court added that "the words used in the provision imposing taxes or granting exemption should be understood in the same way in which these are understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force or by the people who ordinarily deal with them". On coming to a decision whether non-alcoholic beverage base is a kind of food product or food preparation, the Hon. Supreme Court in that case in para 15 listed the most natural and probable signs to interpret the meaning of a text contained in one or more documents as "the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequences or the spirit and reason of the law". The expression 'beverages' in Heading No. 22.02 of the Tariff has been used in the company of 'mineral water', 'aerated watrers', 'fruit or vegetable juices'. In the context, the expression 'beverage' has been used therein, it may be difficult to say that it also represents the syrup (sharbat). As aerated water base is not the aerated water, or the ethyl alcohol is not a fermented or distilled alcoholic beverage, so the syrup in the form the sharbat under consideration before us is, may not be considered as such, a beverage. For that matter the coffee chicory mixture in the form of a powder has been placed in the category of beverages in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980 E.L.T. 65 (AP); and it was argued before the Tribunal in the case of Parle Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1988 (33) E.L.T. 445 (Tribunal) that non-alcoholic beverage bases were beverages (Para 5); but can mixtures or powders and bases be placed in the company of aerated waters and juices for the purposes of their classification under Heading No. 22.02 of the Tariff'. The answer is obviously 'no'.

We do not consider that the squashes, and the product under consideration in the present proceedings, are the same. In fact, in the case of McDowell & Company Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 454 (Bombay), the concentrated whisky has been distinguished from whisky, and concentrated brandy from brandy (refer para 9).

20. In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Parle Exports Pvt. Ltd., 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (SC), the matter before the Hon. Supreme Court was whether non-alcoholic beverage base was a food product or food preparation. It was in this context that the term beverage vis-a-vis food was used in that judgment.

25. In para 13 of his order, after referring to the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Parle Exports Pvt. Ltd., 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 about understanding expressions in the Tariff Schedule by the language employed and the context in which the expression occurs, my learned brother has observed that the expression beverages in Heading 22.02 of the Tariff has been used in the company of mineral water, aerated water, fruit or vegetable juices and in the context the expression "beverage" has been used therein, it may be difficult to say that it also represents Sharbat. He has, therefore, held that mixtures or powder and bases cannot be placed in the company of aerated waters and juices for classification under 22.02 of the Tariff and that the product Sharbat Rooh Afza is a Sharbat (Syrup), distinct from liquids such as mineral water, aerated water, alcohol. While I agree with the last mentioned observation as there cannot be any quarrel about the statement that Rooh Afza is a distinct from mineral water, aerated water alcohol etc., the earlier observation that beverage in Heading 22.02 of the Tariff has been used in the company of Mineral Water, aerated waters, fruit or vegetable juice does not bear scrutiny and nothing really turns on that. The actual Tariff entry reads as follows :