Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2020-2021/3572

Whether carbonated fruit juices fall under Fruit Juices or aerated drinks?
Rich Dairy Products (India) Private Limited Order No. 41/AAR/2019 dated 23.09.2019
Brief Facts:M/s. Rich Dairy Product (India) Private Limited is engaged manufacturing of fruit juices and also carbonated fruit juices. The applicant is using input of carbonated water is around 92.5% and lime juice/lime juice concentrate is 2.5% and Orange juice is 5% for manufacturing of carbonated fruit juices. The applicant is selling in the above product in sealed bottle and same is marketed as “Carbonated Beverage with Fruit Juice”.
Issue:  Whether carbonated fruit juices fall under Fruit Juices or aerated drinks?
Applicant’s contention:The contention of applicant is that they stated that as per FSSAI regulation of 2016, their products are ‘carbonated fruit based drinks’ to be classified under HSN 22029020, taxable at 12% GST.
The applicant has stated that the GST rate @28% and Cess @12 % are applicable only for the goods with description as all goods including Aerated water containing added sugar or other sweetening materials or flavoured. Hence nowhere fruit juices are mentioned.
 Their product Carbonated fruit juices do not fall under the above description of Aerated water containing added sugar or sweetening materials. Also Nowhere the percentage of fruit juices content are given for determination of tax rates whether falls under 28% or 12%.
In a similar issue during the VAT regime, the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of ‘Appy Fizz’ has given verdict saying that Appy Fizz belongs to fruit juices only and therefore KVAT @ 20% could not be demanded and since fruit juices were involved it can be taxed @ KVAT 12%. The judgment was given to Kerala Sales tax offices.
 The Government of India- Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has also issued necessary amendment that if the quantity of fruit juice in the beverage is below 10%, but not less than 5% (2.5% in case of lime or lemon), the product shall be called carbonated beverage with fruit juice. Hence it is carbonated beverages with fruit juices only.
Concentrate of fruit juices content in the carbonated fruit juices manufactured by them is as follows-Lemon juice-2.5% as per FSSAI norms; other juice- 5% as per FSSAI Norms
Respondent’s contention and reasoning:The advance ruling argued that content of lime juice and orange juice for manufacturing of “Carbonated Beverage with Fruit Juice” is under parameter of 3A of FSSAI regulation 2.3.30 and also satisfies the categorization under 14.1.4.1. Hence, the said product cannot be classified as “Aerated Water” under chapter heading 22021010. The product will be classified either under chapter 22021020 or 22021090 on depending on flavors. The GST is applicable @ 28% on the said product under GST Regime.
The Applicant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in classification of ‘APPY FIZZ’ in case of M/s Parle Agro Ltd vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Trivandrum in the VAT regime. However, that ruling is not relevant here as the products are different and that ruling was based on the classification as per the Kerala VAT notifications. Under GST, classifications is based on First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The fruit juices are extracted from fresh, healthy and ripe fruits through various processes followed by filtration to remove solids, aeration, homogenization and sterlisation. Such fruit juices to be classified under CTH 2009 can have added sugar, standardizing agent, preservatives as long as they retain their original character. However, addition of water to normal fruit juice or to a concentrated juice of a greater quantity of water than is necessary to reconstitute the original fruit juice results in diluted products excludes such products from CTH 2009 and are to be classified as beverages of heading 2202 – In the instant case, water constitutes around 92% in all the products in question. The product is prepared by adding fruit juice, procured by the applicant (as per the input invoices submitted), to filter water. It is evident that this large quantity of water results in diluted products which as per the Explanatory Notes above get classified under CTH 2202.
Waters, including mineral waters and aerated waters, containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured, and Other Non-alcoholic beverages, not including fruit or vegetable juices of Heading 2009’ are covered under CTH 2202. Further, The Explanatory Notes classifies Waters, including mineral waters and aerated waters, containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured’ under CTH 220210 – In the case at hand, the manufacturing process of the products involves addition of fruit juice (Lime/ Orange), sugar, ingredients, flavours to filtered water in a blending tank, which is chilled at 5°C in the Chilling Tank and then passed through Juice& CO2 Mixing Unit after which the same is bottled for supply in various quantities such as 200 ml, 300 ml, 600 ml, 1500 ml, etc. and are sold as ‘Carbonated Beverage with fruit juice’. These beverages fall squarely under the category mentioned in the Para (A) (2) of the Explanatory Notes above. That is they are classifiable under CTH 220210.
The products to be supplied by the applicant are to be classified as ‘Richyaa Darner Lemon’ and ‘Licta Lemon’ are classifiable under CTH 22021020 and all others i.e. ‘Richyaa Darner Cola’, ‘Licta Cola’, ‘Richyaa Darner Jeera Soda’, ‘Licta Jeera Masala, ‘Richyaa Darner Orange’ and ‘Licta Orange’ are classifiable as ‘Other’ under CTH 22021090.
Comment: AAAR also upheld the order of AAR vide Order in Appeal No. AAAR/01/2020 (AR) dated 10.02.2020
Prepared : Vijay
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com