1993 (7) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the process of sifting and blending dextrose monohydrate with tricalcium phosphate and vitamin D amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Classification of the resultant product, Glucovita Glucose D, under the Central Excise Tariff.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the process of sifting and blending dextrose monohydrate with tricalcium phosphate and vitamin D amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:

The appellants argued that the process of sifting and blending dextrose monohydrate with tricalcium phosphate and vitamin D does not amount to manufacture as it does not result in a transformation that creates a new and different article with a distinct name, character, or use. They cited several decisions, including Union of India v. Delhi Cloth Mills (1977), Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers (1980), and Sterling Food v. State of Karnataka (1986), to support their claim that mere processing does not constitute manufacture. They emphasized that the essential characteristics of dextrose remained unchanged and that the process did not involve any chemical change or reaction.

In contrast, the respondents contended that the processes carried out by the appellants amounted to manufacture. They argued that the addition of tricalcium phosphate and vitamin D to dextrose monohydrate was deliberate and intended to enrich the product with essential nutrients, thereby altering its character and identity. The respondents cited relevant extracts from "Normal and Therapeutic Nutrition" and other technical literature to support their argument that the addition of these ingredients served a specific purpose of providing vital body nutrients.

The judgment noted that the enriched product, Glucovita Glucose D, had a different character and identity from the original dextrose monohydrate. The product was specifically intended for use as food, as indicated by the instructions on its packaging. The judgment also referenced the opinion of the Chief Chemist, who had opined that the blending of dextrose monohydrate with calcium phosphate and vitamin D resulted in a product with a different character and identity.

The judgment concluded that the processes applied to the raw material resulted in manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The judgment emphasized that the transformation did not necessarily have to be a chemical process and that even simple physical processes could lead to the formation of a new product identifiable as such in the market.

2. Classification of the resultant product, Glucovita Glucose D, under the Central Excise Tariff:

The appellants had initially classified Glucovita Glucose D under sub-heading 1702.21 as "preparation of other sugars." The respondents argued that the product fell under this sub-heading as it was a preparation of glucose enriched with calcium and vitamin D.

The judgment noted that Heading 17.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, covered "other sugars including chemically pure lactose, maltose, glucose and fructose in any form and preparations thereof." The judgment emphasized that the product, Glucovita Glucose D, was a preparation of "other sugars" in which the reducing sugars expressed as anhydrous dextrose amounted to more than 80% by weight.

The judgment also referenced the circular No. 7/90 dated 7-3-1990, which classified Glucose D manufactured out of duty-paid dextrose monohydrate as a preparation of other sugars under Heading 1702.21. The judgment concluded that Glucovita Glucose D fell for classification under Heading 1702.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Conclusion:

The judgment held that the process of sifting and blending dextrose monohydrate with tricalcium phosphate and vitamin D amounted to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The resultant product, Glucovita Glucose D, was classifiable under Heading 1702.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.