Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the product 'Protyne' was classifiable as a medicament under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or as a food supplement under Chapter 21 of the said Tariff Act.
Analysis: The product was found to be a protein-rich nutritional preparation intended for prevention of protein deficiency and general nourishment. The label and use profile did not show any specific disease, disorder, or curative purpose. Applying Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 30 and the settled test that a medicament must be intended for diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, or prevention of disease, the product was held to be essentially a nutritional supplement. The reasoning in the cited precedent was followed, where a similar preparation was classified under the food supplement heading and not as a medicament.
Conclusion: The product was not classifiable as a medicament and was correctly classifiable under Chapter 21 as a food supplement; the view taken by the Revenue was accepted.
Final Conclusion: The assessee's classification claim failed and the Revenue's appeal succeeded, resulting in restoration of the Revenue's position on classification.
Ratio Decidendi: A protein-rich preparation without a demonstrated curative, prophylactic, or disease-specific therapeutic use is classifiable as a nutritional food supplement and not as a medicament under Chapter 30.