Supreme Court classifies Selace capsules as vitamins, not medicaments, attracting 18% duty

The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals regarding the classification of medicaments such as Selace capsules and Omega-3 Fatty acids with vitamin E capsules. The Court determined that these goods should be classified under Tariff Sub-heading 2936.00 as vitamins attracting an 18% duty, rather than under sub-heading 3003.10 for "Patent or proprietary medicaments" with a 15% duty. The Court emphasized the distinction between organic chemicals and pharmaceutical products, concluding that the items in question fell under the category of vitamins rather than medicaments.

---

---

Issues: Classification of medicaments under Tariff Sub-heading 3003.10 or 2936.00.

In this judgment, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of classifying various medicaments, including Selace capsules, Ostebon 400 Mg Capsules, Aroin capsules, Omega-3 Fatty acids with vitamin E capsules, among others. The assessee claimed these goods to be classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10 attracting a duty of 15%, while the Department classified them as vitamins under Tariff sub-heading 2936.00 attracting a duty of 18%. The Court examined the definitions of these sub-headings, with 3003.10 pertaining to "Patent or proprietary medicaments" and 2936.00 to "Provitamins and vitamins, natural or reproduced by synthesis." The Department argued that specific entries take precedence over general ones, leading to the question of whether the items should be classified under TSH 2936.00 or TSH 3003.10.

The Court highlighted the distinction between Chapter 29 (Organic chemicals) and Chapter 30 (Pharmaceutical Products) under which TSH 2936.00 and TSH 3003.10 fall, respectively. It noted that 'Medicaments' are defined as goods for therapeutic or prophylactic uses under Chapter 30, while provitamins and vitamins are categorized as organic chemicals under Chapter 29. The Court also mentioned that medicaments are expressly excluded from the scope of Tariff Heading 29.36 under the HSN. Despite the assessee's claim of therapeutic value for the items, the Adjudicating Authority failed to adequately address these issues.

Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the civil appeals and dismissed them without any order as to costs.

---