1996 (9) TMI 272 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal upholds 'PRO-10' classification as per Central Excise Tariff, rejecting alternate pleas

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT upheld the classification of the product 'PRO-10' under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, rejecting the Revenue's plea ... Classification Issues: Classification of the product 'PRO-10' under the Central Excise Tariff - T.I. 68 vs. T.I. 14E vs. T.I. 1B, eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 17/70-C.E., and applicability of precedents.In the case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, the Revenue appealed against the Collector's classification of the product 'PRO-10' under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, while the department argued for classification under T.I. 14E. The respondents claimed classification under T.I. 1B and exemption under Notification No. 17/70-C.E. The Assistant Commissioner (A.C.) rejected T.I. 1B classification, deeming the product a food supplement under T.I. 68, not eligible for exemption. The lower authority upheld this classification. The Revenue raised the T.I. 14E classification in a separate appeal. The Tribunal referenced a similar case involving CAL-750, classifying it under T.I. 68, not T.I. 1B. The Tribunal found 'PRO-10' to be a tonic or additional nutrition, not a prepared or preserved food under T.I. 1B, following the precedent set in the CAL-750 case. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the classification under T.I. 68, dismissing T.I. 1B and T.I. 14E classifications.The main issue in this case was the classification of the product 'PRO-10' under the Central Excise Tariff. The Revenue contended for classification under T.I. 14E, while the respondents claimed T.I. 1B classification and exemption under Notification No. 17/70-C.E. The A.C. classified the product as a food supplement under T.I. 68, denying exemption. The Tribunal, referencing a similar case, held that 'PRO-10' was akin to a tonic or additional nutrition, not falling under T.I. 1B for prepared or preserved foods. The Tribunal found the product more aligned with T.I. 68, confirming the lower authority's classification and rejecting T.I. 14E classification.The Tribunal's decision hinged on whether 'PRO-10' qualified as a food product under T.I. 1B or fell under T.I. 68 as a tonic or additional nutrition. The Tribunal referenced a prior case involving CAL-750 with a similar composition, classified under T.I. 68. Despite the deletion of dosage instructions, the Tribunal deemed 'PRO-10' as a tonic for convalescent patients or additional nutrition, not fitting the T.I. 1B criteria for prepared or preserved foods. Following the precedent set in the CAL-750 case, the Tribunal upheld the classification under T.I. 68, dismissing T.I. 1B and T.I. 14E classifications for 'PRO-10.'In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT upheld the classification of the product 'PRO-10' under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, rejecting the Revenue's plea for T.I. 14E classification and the respondents' claim for T.I. 1B classification and exemption. The Tribunal found 'PRO-10' to be akin to a tonic or additional nutrition, not meeting the criteria for prepared or preserved foods under T.I. 1B, in line with a prior case involving a similar product. Thus, the Tribunal's decision aligned 'PRO-10' with T.I. 68, affirming the lower authority's classification and dismissing alternative classifications.