Page 116 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

562 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
fruit juice are in liquid form without any addition of sugar or other additives.
There is no difference in the usage of fruit pulp or fruit juices used for manufac-
ture of carbonated fruit juices. They submitted copy of Hon’ble Supreme Court
judgment in classification of ‘APPY FIZZ’ in case of M/s. Parle Agro Ltd. v. Com-
missioner of Commercial Taxes, Trivandrum [2010 (254) E.L.T. A13 (S.C.)] in the
VAT regime where the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled on the classification as per
Kerala VAT notifications. They stated that fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks
should be classified under HSN 2202 99 20 relying on the FSSAI regulations.
They have claimed that Appy Fizz drink is being sold at 12% GST and the same
should be permitted for their drinks.
3. The Original Authorities has ruled as follows :
The products ‘Richyaa Damer Lemon’ and ‘Licta Lemon’ to be supplied
by the applicant are classifiable under CTH 2202 10 20 and all others i.e.
‘Richyaa Damer Cola’, ‘Licta Cola’, ‘Richyaa Damer Jeera Soda’, ‘Licta
Jeera Masala’, ‘Richyaa Damer Orange’ and ‘Licta Orange’ are classifia-
ble as ‘Other’ under CTH 2202 10 90.
4. Aggrieved by the above decision, the Appellant has filed the present
appeal. The grounds of appeal are as follows :
 Applying FSSAI Regulations, the products in question are classifia-
ble under Tariff Item 2202 99 20 as ‘Fruit Juice Based Drinks’ - “Fruit
juice based drinks” are not defined in the Tariff Schedule.
o Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner v. Parle
Agro Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (254) E.L.T. A13] examined whether the
common parlance test was the only test to be applied for un-
derstanding the different entries and whether the decision
and opinion of Food Safety Authorities on the product in
question was relevant. The Hon’ble Court observed that the
common parlance test or commercial parlance test were not
the only test which can be applied for interpreting the entries;
scientific and technical meaning of the word ‘aerated’ used
under different Statutes can also be looked into for finding
out the real import of the entry; therefore the Supreme Court
referred to Regulation 2.3.10 in regard to ‘thermally pro-
cessed fruit beverages/fruit drink, ready to serve fruit bever-
ages’.
o Thus, FSSAI Regulations can definitely be relied upon to un-
derstand the scope of ‘fruit juice based drinks’. This under-
standing was also referred to/followed in CESTAT Larger
Bench decision in case of M/s. Brindavan Beverages Private Lim-
ited v. CCE & ST [2019 (10) TMI 762-CESTAT Allahabad (LB)
= 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 418 (Tri. - LB)]. In any case, the Authority
in the Impugned Ruling has also relied upon FSSAI Regula-
tions to interpret ‘Carbonated Fruit Beverages’ etc.
o FSSAI Regulations were amended in year 2016 to state that if
the quantity of fruit juice is below 10% but not less than 5.0%
(2.5% in case of lime or lemon), the products shall be called
‘Carbonated beverage with fruit juice’. Thus the intention of
FSSAI is clear that if a beverage contains the specified
amount of fruit juice, it shall be called as ‘Carbonated bever-
GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  116