Page 115 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : RICH DAIRY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 561
92.5% with 2.5% of lime juice/lime juice concentrate and 5% Orange juice -
Beverages ready to drink beverages supplied in sealed bottles of various ca-
pacities after being carbonated - Same marketed as ‘Carbonated Beverage with
Fruit Juice’ - Products having fruit content required under Para 3A of Regula-
tion 2.3.30 ibid and also satisfies categorisation under 14.1.4.1 of Appendix A
of Regulation - No contradiction in findings of lower authority in categorisa-
tion of product under FSSAI - View also supported by Annexure-III of rec-
ommendation of Fitment Committee approved by GST Council - Ruling of
Authority for Advance Ruling not interfered with. - Carbonated Fruit Beverage or
Fruit Drink is prepared from fruit juice and water or carbonated water and the minimum
requirement of the Fruit content is not less than 5.0 per cent. in the case of Lime or Lem-
on juice and in cases of other fruits the content should not be less than 10.0 per cent. In
case if the quantity of fruit juice (other than lime or lemon) is less than 10.0 per cent. but
not less than 5.0 per cent. and in case of lime or lemon the same is less than 5.0 per cent.
but not less than 2.5 per cent., then the products are called as ‘Carbonated Beverages
with Fruit Juice’ and they are not ‘Carbonated Fruit Beverages or Fruit Drinks’. The
Regulations differentiates the Beverages based on the content of Fruit juice and it is seen
that to be called as ‘Carbonated Fruit Beverage or Fruit Drink’, the minimum require-
ment of the fruit content is not less than 10% in the case of all fruits except lime or lem-
on, where the requirement is not less than 5%. In the case at hand, the products have a
content of fruit juice as required under Para 3A of the Regulation 2.3.30 and therefore
are ‘Carbonated Beverage with Fruit Juice’ and are not carbonated Fruit Beverages or
Fruit Drinks. [paras 8.1, 8.3, 10, 11]
Appeal rejected
CASES CITED
Brindavan Beverages Private Limited v. Commissioner
— 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 418 (Tribunal - LB) — Distinguished .................................... [Paras 4, 6, 8.4, 9]
Commissioner v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd.
— 2012 (286) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) — Referred .................................................................................... [Para 4]
Commissioner v. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. — 2010 (254) E.L.T. A13 (S.C.) — Referred .................... [Paras 2, 4]
Commissioner v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd. — 2012 (277) E.L.T. 299 (S.C.) — Referred ........... [Para 4]
Damodar J. Malpani v. Collector — 2002 (146) E.L.T. 483 (S.C.) — Referred .................................... [Para 6]
Naturalle Health Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 2003 (158) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) — Referred ......... [Para 6]
Trinity Beverages Pvt. Ltd. — No. 42/19-20, dated 30-9-2019
— Order of Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad — Distinguished ............................. [Paras 6, 9]
[Order]. - The subject appeal has been filed under Section 100(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods & Services Tax Act,
2017 by M/s. Rich Dairy Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
‘Appellant’). The appellant is registered under GST vide GSTIN
33AADCR3175K1ZA. The appeal is filed against the Order No. 41/AAR/2019,
dated 23-9-2019 [2019 (30) G.S.T.L. 496 (A.A.R. - GST)] passed by the Tamil Nadu
State Authority for Advance Ruling on the application for advance ruling filed
by the appellant.
2. The appellant manufactures fruit juices and also carbonated fruit
juices. They sought ruling on the question :
‘Whether carbonated fruit juices falls under Fruit Juices or aerated
drinks?’.
The contentions of the appellant are the drinks are fruit base drinks and Carbon-
dioxide is used for preservation purpose. Fruit pulps are in semi liquid form and

GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  115