TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 188
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in today's cause list, with the consent of both sides, we take up this application also for consideration. 2. This application filed by the respondent seeks to bring on record two documents as additional evidence against certain grounds raised in the Revenue's appeal. One of these documents is a copy of partnership deed dated 1-1-2000 between Mr. Jaydeep Ashok Thaker and Mr. Pranav Ashok Thaker, who constituted the partnership firm, namely, "M/s. Jay Pranav Ayurvedic Pharmaceuticals". The second document is a copy of an application dated 23-5-2000 submitted by the above partnership firm to the Registrar of Trademarks under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that these documents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y stage before. The present application is highly belated and is liable to be rejected, according to the learned SDR. 4. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we have found a valid reason to allow this application. Two show-cause notices were issued to the respondent, One for re-classification of the subject-goods and the other for denying the benefit of the aforesaid Notification to the respondent. The original authority passed a common order in adjudication of both the notices and that order went against the assessee on both the issues. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter allowed the appeal. In the present appeal filed by the Revenue, one of the grounds relates ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e benefit of an exemption Notification, it is for him to establish that he is entitled to the benefit. If any exception is carved out of the exemption, it is for the manufacturer to show that he is not within the scope of the exception. The respondent is liable to establish, in the present case, that they are not affected by anything contained in para 4 of the Notification. An opportunity for discharging this burden of proof cannot be denied to them. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the present application by receiving both the documents as the respondent's evidence against the aforementioned ground of the Revenue's appeal. However, we would not proceed to take a final view on the respondent's claim under Notification No. 8/2001 inasmuch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e about these samples and, therefore, we would like to examine the composition of the goods from the product label. The label describes the goods as "Nutrition Supplement for Diet, Energy and Muscle Building". The label also conspicuously describes the product as "NATURAL HEALTH SUPPLEMENT". It shows the following composition. "Protein 35 gms Fat 2 gms Zinc 13 mg Vitamin - A 4000 I.U. Vitamin - B1 5 mg Vitamin - C 75 mg- Vitamin - E 100 mg Vitamin - D 1200 I.U. Calcium 250 mg Tricalcium Phosphate 250 mg Niacinamide 20 mg Iron 25mg" According to the learned counsel the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are quite firm and the same have not been succes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s referred to by the appellant reads thus : "Food preparation of flour, meal, starch or malt extract not containing cocoa or containing less than 40% by weight of cocoa calculated on a totally defatted basis." The product label indicates that it contains ingredients sourced from cocoa. Revenue has not asked for any assay of the percentage by weight of cocoa calculated on a defatted basis. Their query to the department's laboratory was how to classify the goods under the Tariff. Therefore, the claim of the Revenue for classifying the goods under Heading 19.01 as 'food preparation of flour, meal, starch or malt extract not cont lining cocoa or containing less than 40% by weight of cocoa calculated on a defatted basis' is yet to be subst....