1996 (6) TMI 259 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules goods as baby food despite additional utility for pregnant women.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the eligibility for exemption on goods described as energy/weaning food for infants under Notification 17/70. ... Food - Baby Food Issues:Eligibility for exemption on goods described as energy/weaning food for infants under Notification 17/70.Detailed Analysis:The appeal concerns the eligibility for exemption on goods described as energy/weaning food intended for infants under Notification 17/70. The issue revolves around whether the goods can be classified as baby food as per the relevant provisions. The Notification excludes baby foods specially prepared for feeding infants from the exemption. The respondents argued that the goods should not be chargeable to duty as they are not put up for sale in containers. However, it was acknowledged that the goods are packed in unit containers of 25 Kgs, which should be considered for assessment under the tariff heading. The crux of the matter is whether the goods qualify as baby food under para 14 of the Notification. The respondents contended that the product, though intended for infants, is also for pregnant women and lactating mothers. The key argument was whether the goods were exclusively meant for infants as baby food to avail the exemption.The respondents claimed that the product was specially formulated based on a report by the United Nations Protein Advisory group to supplement food for infants in poor countries. The formulation aimed to meet the nutritional needs of infants, children, pregnant women, and lactating mothers. The contention was that the product, while catering to a broader population, was primarily designed for infants, children, and pregnant/lactating women. The focus was on whether the item's primary purpose as baby food was diluted by its additional utility for other demographics.The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both sides. It noted that the lower appellate authority erred in determining that the goods were not packed in unit containers, as conceded by the respondents. The crucial consideration was whether the product could be classified as baby food under the Notification. The Tribunal referred to the definition of infant and infancy, emphasizing that the item was formulated to address infant feeding issues in poor countries. Despite being usable by pregnant women and lactating mothers, the product's core purpose remained infant nutrition. The Tribunal highlighted that the absence of milk in the product did not negate its classification as baby food, given its formulation and intended use for infants. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the revenue's argument failed as the product primarily targeted infant nutrition, aligning with the definition of baby food despite its broader applicability.