2010 (10) TMI 188 - AT - Central Excise

Nutrition supplement Classification - sample which was composed of proteinous matter, fatty matter, together with smaller amounts of mixture of various vitamins, flavouring agent and sweetening agent could rightly be classified under Heading 21.08 as food supplement - appellant just contended that Heading 21.08 was a residuary entry covering goods not specified or included whereas Heading 19.01 is a specific heading read with Explanatory Notes - classification of the goods under Heading SH 2108.99, sustained

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether additional evidence in the form of partnership deed and trademark application should be allowed in the case.
2. Classification of goods under SH 1901.92 or SH 2108.99.
3. Eligibility of the respondent for SSI benefit under Notification No. 8/2001.

Analysis:
1. The respondent sought to introduce two crucial documents, a partnership deed and a trademark application, to establish ownership of a brand name in a case involving SSI benefit denial. The Tribunal allowed the application, emphasizing the importance of these documents in determining brand ownership, a key factor affecting SSI eligibility. The original authority was tasked with assessing the impact of these documents on the case, underscoring the burden on the manufacturer to prove entitlement to exemptions.

2. The classification issue revolved around whether the goods should be categorized under SH 1901.92 as food preparation or SH 2108.99 as an edible supplement. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the latter classification based on the product composition and usage, which the Tribunal found reasonable. The appellant's argument citing Heading 19.01 as specific and Heading 21.08 as residual was deemed insufficient, with the product label indicating ingredients from cocoa, warranting sustained classification under SH 2108.99.

3. Regarding SSI benefit eligibility, the Tribunal remanded the decision to the original authority for a fresh assessment, considering the new evidence and the brand ownership issue. The respondent's claim required reevaluation in light of the received documents, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The appeal was disposed of, with both miscellaneous applications also addressed in the judgment.