Exemption cannot be denied where Niacinamide is below the prophylactic threshold and prior proceedings remain undisturbed.

Exemption under the notification was considered in relation to a product containing Niacinamide, where the ingredient was found to be present below the recommended prophylactic dose. The Tribunal relied on the earlier adjudication for the same period and noted that a prior order dropping similar proceedings had not been reviewed or disturbed. As the Revenue did not controvert the factual finding recorded in the impugned order, there was no basis to deny the exemption. The assessee's relief was therefore sustained and the Revenue's challenge was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product was entitled to exemption under the notification despite the presence of Niacinamide.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the appellate authority had relied on the earlier adjudication for the same period and on the finding that Niacinamide in the product, though present, worked out to be much less than the recommended prophylactic dose. The Revenue did not controvert the factual finding recorded in the impugned order, and the prior order dropping similar proceedings had not been reviewed. On these facts, there was no basis to deny the exemption.

Conclusion: The exemption was held admissible and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order granting relief to the assessee was sustained and the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the factual finding is that the ingredient in question is below the relevant prophylactic threshold and a prior order on the same grounds has remained undisturbed, exemption under the notification cannot be denied.

---