Ayurvedic product classification turns on proven therapeutic use; pending appeal does not suspend binding precedent.

Imported goods marketed for general health and well-being, without evidence of therapeutic or prophylactic use, were treated as a food supplement under heading 2106 rather than an Ayurvedic medicament under heading 3003. The importer bore the burden of proving the claimed classification and failed to discharge it on the record. A prior coordinate Bench ruling on a similar product was followed as binding, and the pendency or admission of an appeal in a higher forum did not suspend that precedent in the absence of a stay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported product was classifiable as an Ayurvedic medicament under heading 3003 or as a food supplement / other food preparation under heading 2106, and whether the duty demand confirmed on that basis was sustainable.

Analysis: The importer failed to substantiate the claim that the product was intended for treatment or prevention of diseases with supporting evidence. The materials on record and the product description showed that the goods were marketed as a health and food supplement for general well-being rather than as a medicament. The onus to establish the declared classification lay on the importer, and that burden was not discharged. The earlier coordinate Bench decision on a similar product was treated as binding, and the mere pendency or admission of an appeal before a higher forum was held not to keep the precedent in abeyance or prevent the Tribunal from deciding the appeal on merits.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classified under heading 2106, the duty demand was sustainable, and the appeals failed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed the classification adopted by the department and upheld the consequential duty liability.

Ratio Decidendi: A product promoted for general health or well-being, without proof of therapeutic or prophylactic use, is classifiable as a food supplement and not as a medicament; an appeal pending in a higher forum does not suspend the binding force of the existing decision in the absence of a stay.

---