TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (12) TMI 335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he jurisdictional Assistant Collector felt that the product does not merit classification under T.I. 1B but it would be classifiable under T.I. 68 and issued show cause notice for the purpose. The Assistant Collector considered the reply to the show cause notice and found that in their own "Medical Times" January and March, 1996 their product probofex is mentioned. The Assistant Collector held that the product probofex is not an item of food going by the general usage of the term. He also did not accept the certificate given by the Food and Drug Control Authority that the product will not fall under the category of drug. He referred to their own "Medical Times" journal where the product was recommended for building up haemoglobin with a spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it did not fall under that category of food with reference to judicial decisions. The goods here are marketed as food supplement. The ld. SDR referred to the Concise Oxford Dictionary meaning of the term "supplement" as a thing or part added to remedy deficiencies. Reference was also made to Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. Union of India - 1980 (6) E.L.T. 65 (A.P.) to say that the word "food" has no definition of universal application and it varies from statute to statute. Reliance was also placed on the Government of India decision In Re : Asian Chemical Works - 1982 (10) E.L.T. 609A wherein it was held that the scope of the word "food" under the Food Adulteration Act will be relevant to that Act alone. Ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Adonis Laboratories v. C.C.E., Bombay-II (Order No. 109/92-C, dated 18-3-1992) all these products were having ingredients which are comparable with the present product and the ingredient protein hydrolysate is common to all which is one of the grounds taken in the show cause notice for excluding the item from coverage of 1B which the ld. Counsel also argues that in the case of animal food and animal food supplement there is a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sun Export Corporation v. C.C., Bombay - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) which lays down that animal food supplement will be covered by the generic term animal food. The ld. Counsel submitted that the principle laid down in this judgment would also be app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the product called "energex" for which the assessee claimed classification under Item 1B of CET which the Department sought to classify under Item 68 of CET. The Tribunal upheld the classification under Item 1B. This decision was followed in the case of Collector v. Li Take Pharmaceuticals in Order No. 735/91-C, wherein also the product considered was called "Prolita Syrup" whose classification was claimed under Tariff Item 1B of CET and the Department sought to review the approval of the classification so as to bring it under Item 14E of CET, as patent or proprietary medicine. Following these two decisions of the Tribunal another decision was rendered in the case of Adonis Laboratories v. Collector, Final Order No. 109/92-C. The Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... classified under Item 1B of CET. Thereafter, the Tribunal also followed the precedent decision in the Indo-Pharma case supra. In the Adonis Laboratories, decision while following the above two precedents, the Tribunal considered the view of the Drugs Controller that the product "Aminoglobin" is marketed as food article and is not a drug. 9. However, the Tribunal in the Aaron Pharmaceuticals case in 1994 had no occasion to consider the precedents cited above because these were not cited before the Tribunal and hence proceeded to decide the matter on its finding that the product is obviously not of a type considered as prepared or preserved food. This decision of the Tribunal has apparently been passed per incuriam of the precedent d....