2017 (5) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT

Classification - fruit juice based drink known as ‘Appy Fizz’ - The appellant was classifying the product as fruit juice based drink under Entry 71 of the notification issued under Section 6(1)(d) of Act, 2003 till 2007 and was paying @ 12.5% VAT - the Committee of Joint Commissioner passed the clarification order dated 6th November, 2015 classifying the product as ‘aerated branded soft drinks', at the rate of 20% - What is interrelation between Section 6(1)(a) and Section 6(1)(d) of Act, 2003? - Held that: - Applicability of the power of State to issue notification under Section 6(1)(d) arises only when goods were not covered by Section 6(1)(a). Fruit juice based drinks, thus, were never treated as 'aerated branded soft drinks' which was the understanding of State of Kerala while issuing notification under Section 6(1(d). Had fruit juice based drinks were also to be covered by aerated branded soft drinks, there was no occasion for subordinate legislative authority, i.e., the State Government, to include such products in notification under Section 6(1)(d).

What is scope and ambit of Item 5 of Entry 71 as amended? - Held that: - A bare perusal of Entry 71 as above indicates that the Entry covers nonalcoholic beverages and their powders, concentrates and tablets in any form including Item No.2 contains fruit juice, fruit concentrates, fruit squash, fruit syrup and pulp and fruit cordial - the Entry of fruit juice based drinks got subsumed in the residuary entry and the amendment by S.R.O. No.119 of 2008 did not change or affect the character and content of the products which were included in Entry 71.

Whether common parlance test is the only test to be applied for understanding the different entries under Section 6(1)(a) and Section 6(1)(d)? - Held that: - the Entry 2 under Section 6(1)(a) uses the word 'aerated'. This is scientific term and has been repeatedly used in different statutes including the Central Excise Tariff and different HSN codes also uses the term 'aerated'. The word 'aerated' is scientific and technical word used under different statutes and the scientific and technical meaning of the word 'aerated' can be looked into for finding out the real import of the Entry - common parlance and commercial parlance test was not the only test which could have been applied for interpreting the entries in items mentioned in Section 6(1)(a) and the entries which contain scientific and technical word were also to be looked into in technical and scientific meaning. Both the High Court and the Committee of Joint Commissioners discarded the evidence of technical and scientific meaning of word - The appellant has rightly relied on the technical evidence brought on the record which indicate that use of carbon dioxide to the extent of 0.6 per cent was only for the purpose of preservative in packaging the commodities and the product was thermally processed and carbon dioxide was added to as the preservative.

Principle of 'Noscitur a Sociis' - Held that: - Applying the principle of construction of 'noscitur a sociis' on Entry 71, it is clear that clause 5 of Entry 71 has to take colour and meaning from the other items included in Entry 71. Item 5 of Entry 71 uses the words “similar other products not specifically mentioned under any other entry in this list or any other schedule”. Thus, the products which are to be covered under Item No.5 are similar other products - When Item No.2 of the Entry 71 that is fruit juice, fruit concentrates, fruit squash, fruit syrup and pulp, and fruit cordial and item No.4 that is health drinks of all varieties, are kept in mind the fruit juice based drink shall fall in Item No.5. Both High Court and Committee of Commissioners overlooked this principle while interpreting item No.5 of Entry 71.

Whether the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in M/s. Trade Lines [2014 (11) TMI 1045 - KERALA HIGH COURT] can preclude the Committee of Joint Commissioners to examine the materials filed by the appellant along with Clarification Application under Section 94? - Held that: - the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in M/s. Trade Lines did not conclude the issue and the Committee of Commissioners was not absolved from its duty of deciding the same in accordance with the materials brought on the record by the appellant and although the Committee noticed all the pleadings and contentions but mainly relying on the ruling of M/s. Trade Lines dismissed the clarification application which cannot be sustained.

Whether CESTAT decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL Versus PARLE AGRO PVT. LTD. [2008 (3) TMI 67 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], has any relevance with regard to the classification of product in question? - Held that: - the CESTAT did not hold the product to be under the “aerated water” was a factor which necessitated a more deeper consideration by the High Court to find out as to whether the product is 'aerated branded soft drink' or not. The High Court in its judgment found that since the product charged with air or carbon dioxide was an aerated drink. From the manufacturing process which was on the record, it is clear that carbon dioxide to the extent of 0.6 percent was added as preservative. Technical note submitted on behalf of the appellant clearly mentioned that use of carbon dioxide was only as a preservative of 'Appy Fizz'.

Whether decision and opinion of Food Safety Authorities on the product in question were relevant? - Whether the Committee of Joint Commissioners as well as the High Court has rightly discarded technical and expert opinion relied by the appellant? - Held that: - Before the Committee of Commissioners the entire process of manufacture of the product was explained along with all relevant orders and certificates of Food Safety Authorities. It was stated that the Experts in their opinions and certifications have mentioned that product is commercially and technically distinct from products which have classified as 'aerated branded soft drinks'. The certifications which were relied by the appellant indicate that in the case of 'Appy Fizz' the product does not undergo aeration or carbonation; the product is thermally processed with CO2 which help in preserving the Apple Juice concentrate which is otherwise perishable in nature - Revenue has not filed any material on the record either before the Clarification Authority or before the High Court in support of its view that product is covered under Section 6(1)(a) that is 'aerated branded soft drink'. This Court in several cases has observed that onus to prove that particular goods fall in particular tariff item is on the Revenue. - It is thus concluded that orders of Food Safety Authority and expert opinion regarding process of manufacture relied by the appellant were relevant materials and Clarification Authority and High Court erred in law in discarding these materials.

Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.