Page 201 - GSTL_14th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 2

2020 ] IN RE : HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. 303
toms Tariff Act, 1975 or under GST Law. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd.
[2012 (286) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) - para 43] has held that ‘it is a settled principle in ex-
cise classification that the definition of one statute having a different object, pur-
pose and scheme cannot be applied mechanically to another statute’. The same
view was held by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Kaira Dist. Co.
Op. Milk Producers’ Union Ltd. v. U.O.I. [1989 (41) E.L.T. 186 (Bom.) - Paras 7 and
8].
17.3 As regards the reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Parle Agro (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tri-
vandrum [2017 (352) E.L.T. 113 (S.C.)], we agree with the view of the GAAR that
the issue involved in that case was related to the classification under Kerala Val-
ue Added Tax Act, 2003 wherein the scheme of classification was different than
the classification under Customs Tariff Act, 1975. As regards the decision of
Hon’ble CESTAT in the case of CCE, Bhopal v. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (226)
E.L.T. 194 (Tri.)], it is observed that in that case, the product Appy Fizz contained
a far more higher and significant percentage of Apple juice i.e. 23% whereas in
the case of appellant, product ‘Fanta Fruity Orange’ contains only 1.6% Orange
Juice Concentrate, which is said to be reconstituted to 10.5% Orange juice. The
decision in the case of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (226) E.L.T. 194 (Tri.)] is given in
specific facts of that case. Ministry of Food and Processing Industry had given
certificate in that case. There is no general finding that juice concentrate based
product with specific minimum volume of juice concentrate may be covered un-
der ‘Fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks. As held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Alnoori Tobacco Products [2004 (170)
E.L.T. 135 (S.C.)], circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may
make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases; that disposal of
cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. Therefore, the deci-
sion in the case of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (226) E.L.T. 194 (Tri.)] cannot be ap-
plied to the facts of the present case.
18.1 The appellant has submitted that the GAAR has incorrectly con-
cluded that Tariff Item No. 2202 99 20 will not cover drinks made from fruit juice
concentrates.
18.2 However, we observe that the GAAR has, among other aspects, re-
lied upon the decision of Hon’ble CESTAT in the appellant’s own case [Hindu-
stan Coca Cola Beveages P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV - 2017
(6) G.S.T.L. 200 (Tri. - Chennai)] to arrive at the conclusion that Tariff Item No.
2202 99 20 would not cover ‘Fanta Fruity Orange’ which is not manufactured
from ‘Fruit pulp’ or ‘Fruit juice’, but is undisputedly manufactured from ‘Orange
Juice Concentrate’. It is not the case of the appellant that the said decision has
been stayed or reversed by higher judicial forum. Further, the submission of the
appellant that the Hon’ble CESTAT in that case drew inference from a redundant
Board Circular No. 309/25/97-CX, dated 21-3-1997 also do not hold any water.
The appellant in that case had pleaded before the Tribunal that classification
adopted by Revenue was baseless since that was based on Circular No.
309/25/97-CX. However, Hon’ble CESTAT has arrived at the conclusion that
‘concentrate’ based drink will not be covered under ‘Fruit pulp or fruit juice’
based drink by taking all relevant aspects into consideration and had not drawn
any support from the Board’s Circular dated 21-3-1997.
19.1 The appellant has referred to Explanatory Notes of Heading 20.09,
GST LAW TIMES  14th May 2020  201