Animal feed supplements with vitamins and minerals classified under Heading 2309, not medicament headings 3003/3004

CESTAT Mumbai held that animal feed supplements containing calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, vitamin B12 and vitamin D3 should be classified under Heading 2309 rather than medicament headings 3003/3004. The tribunal found these nutrient supplements are not mentioned in pharmacopoeias, not prescribed by veterinary doctors for ailments, and prescribed doses alone don't constitute medicaments. Revenue failed to discharge burden of proving correct classification. Following precedent in Dabur India Ltd. case, the original authority's rejection was unsustainable. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside.

---

---

Issues:
Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Animal feed supplements vs. pharmaceutical products - Burden of proof on Revenue - Applicability of previous Tribunal decision.

Analysis:
The case involved the classification of goods manufactured by the appellant, including animal feed supplements and pharmaceutical products, under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant classified the products under Heading 2309, while the Revenue contended they should be classified under Heading 3003 or 3004, attracting central excise duty. The dispute arose from the composition of the products, which contained various ingredients. A show cause notice was issued demanding central excise duty, invoking extended limitation periods. The appellant argued that the products were animal feed supplements, not medicaments, citing relevant legal precedents and circulars. The original authority classified the products under Heading 3004, imposing a penalty.

The appellant appealed, relying on a previous Tribunal decision in the case of Dabur India Ltd., which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the products should be classified under Heading 2302 (now 2309) for animal feed supplements, not pharmaceutical products. The appellant emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to show correct classification. The appellant also presented evidence from Pharmacopoeia to support the classification of the products as animal feed supplements.

The Tribunal analyzed the case, noting that the products were nutrient supplements not specified in Pharmacopoeia and not prescribed for curing ailments. The Tribunal rejected the original authority's reasoning for not applying the Dabur India Ltd. decision due to the absence of a laboratory report. Citing legal principles, the Tribunal held that the burden of proof was on the Revenue, which they failed to discharge. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's classification under Heading 2309 for animal feed supplements, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the classification under Heading 2309 for animal feed supplements was appropriate. The decision emphasized the burden of proof on the Revenue and the applicability of previous Tribunal decisions affirmed by the Supreme Court in determining the correct classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

---