2004 (1) TMI 489 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT reclassifies vitamin formulations under Central Excise Tariff 1985, emphasizing therapeutic use.

MAC LABORATORIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, overturned the Commissioner (Appeals)'s classification of entities containing formulations of vitamins under ... Classification Issues: Classification of entities containing formulations of vitamins with other substancesThe judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, involved the classification of entities comprising formulations of vitamins with other substances. The Commissioner (Appeals) had classified the products under Heading 29.36 of the Central Excise Tariff (CET), 1985, instead of Heading 3003.10. The key issues analyzed in the judgment include the interpretation of Chapter Note 2(1) of Chapter 30, the distinction between medicaments and non-medicaments, the administration of products through chemists or druggists, and the therapeutic and prophylactic activities of the formulations.The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities failed to provide reasons why the entities in question were not considered to have therapeutic and prophylactic activities qualifying them as medicaments. It was highlighted that expert opinions were not considered in the lower authorities' findings. The appellants argued that the multivitamin formulations had prophylactic effects in preventing various conditions, but the lower authorities did not address how these diseases could not be prevented or cured by the formulations.Moreover, the issue of classification of entities containing mixtures of vitamins along with excipients was discussed, citing precedents such as Amazon Drugs (P) Ltd. v. CCE and Micronova Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore. The Tribunal also referred to the decision in CCE, Bangalore v. Juggat Pharma Ltd. to support the classification under Heading 3003.10. Contrary decisions were not presented by the Revenue, leading to the confirmation of the classification based on the binding decisions.The Tribunal differentiated cases like Glindia Ltd. v. CCE, which involved animal feed supplements containing vitamins, from the present case concerning formulations of vitamins. The judgment in Shri Baidyanath Ayurvedic Bhavan Ltd. v. CCE was discussed, emphasizing the prescription of medicines by medical practitioners for limited use within a specific timeframe. The evidence provided by the appellants regarding the dosage of vitamins as per prophylactic standards was considered, leading to the conclusion that the classification under Heading 3003.10 was appropriate.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s classification under Heading 29 and confirmed the classification under Heading 3003.10. The appeals were allowed based on the detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the classification of entities containing formulations of vitamins with other substances.