2007 (10) TMI 45 - AT - Central Excise

Hepa Card/Strip Exclusion clause of Heading 3822 indicated that diagnostic reagents can fall under 3002 as well Hepa Card can be correctly considered as prepared animal blood in spite of emergence of anti-body in between and that the same is used for diagnostic purpose so classifiable under 3002

Summary

Issues: Classification of product "Hepa Card Strip" under Chapter Heading 3322.00 or 3002.00

In this case, the issue revolves around the correct classification of the product "Hepa Card Strip" used for detecting Hepatitis B in serum or plasma. The original authority classified the product under Chapter Heading 3322.00, demanding differential duty and imposing a penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the claim of the assessee, classifying the product under 3002.00. The key consideration is whether the product should be classified as a diagnostic or laboratory reagent falling under Chapter Heading 3822.00 or as prepared animal blood under Chapter Heading 3002.00.

The Appellate Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both sides, analyzing the process of manufacture of the Hepa Card/Strip. The process involves infecting a goat with the antigen, purifying the antigen, immunizing other goats, collecting blood samples, estimating antibody levels, purifying antibodies, and using them for the chromatography membrane. The descriptions of the competing headings, 3822.00 and 3002.00, were examined. The Tribunal noted that the term "diagnostic or laboratory reagents" only occurs in 3822.00, but the exclusion clause indicates that such reagents can also fall under Chapter 3002. The Tribunal disagreed with the argument that the final product cannot be treated as 'animal blood prepared' due to the conversion process and absence of specific labeling, citing a precedent related to pregnancy test kits.

The Tribunal concluded that the Hepa Card/Strip can be considered as prepared animal blood meant for diagnostic use, classifiable under 3002.00. The absence of explicit labeling regarding the product's origin does not alter its classification, given the known raw materials and manufacturing process. The reasoning applied in a previous case related to pregnancy kits supports this classification. Consequently, the Tribunal found no valid reason to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Department's appeal.