TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal reclassifies Papain IP/BPC as medicament under Chapter 30, not enzyme under Heading 35.07</h1> <h3>TRUE FOOD CORPORATION Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., AURANGABAD</h3> TRUE FOOD CORPORATION Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., AURANGABAD - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 754 (Tribunal) Issues:Classification of Papain IP/BPC under Central Excise Tariff Act - Whether under sub-heading 3003.20 or 3507.00.Detailed Analysis:1. Issue of Classification: The primary issue in the appeal was the classification of Papain IP/BPC manufactured by M/s. True Food Corporation. The Assistant Collector classified the product under sub-heading 3003.20, while the Collector (Appeals) classified it under sub-heading 3507.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Appellants contended that the product, a proteolytic enzyme prepared from the juice of unripe papaya fruit, should be classified under Chapter 30 as a medicament.2. Appellants' Argument: The Appellants argued that prior to 1-3-1986, Papain IP/BPC was classified under a different item. They emphasized that the product is a mixture with therapeutic uses, manufactured under a license from the Food and Drug Administration. They challenged the reliance on the Board's Circular and the test report of the Dy. Chief Chemist, asserting that the product should be considered a medicament under Chapter 30, not an enzyme under Heading 35.07.3. Department's Position: The Department, represented by Shri M.P. Singh, supported the findings of the Collector (Appeals) and highlighted that the Pharmacopoeia includes chemicals used in medicine preparation. Reference was made to the Explanatory Notes of HSN, which recognize Papain as a significant enzyme in trade.4. Judgment: The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and concluded that the product should be classified under Chapter 30 as a medicament. It was noted that the product was mentioned in the Pharmacopoeia with digestive properties, supporting its classification as a medicament. The Tribunal found that Heading 35.07, covering prepared enzymes, did not apply to the product, as clarified by Note 1(b) to Chapter 35. Therefore, the appeal by the Appellants was allowed, overturning the classification under sub-heading 3507.00.This detailed analysis outlines the classification dispute, the arguments presented by both sides, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of relevant provisions and considerations of the product's nature and usage.
TaxTMI 