1998 (5) TMI 106 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under Tariff Heading No. 2925.00 for concessional duty under Notification No. 53/84.

Analysis:
1. Case E/1883/89-C M/s. Elegan Pharmaceuticals:
- The issue revolved around whether 'Saccharin' and 'Sodium Saccharin' are distinct commodities for classification under Tariff Heading No. 2925.00. The Collector (Appeals) differentiated between 'saccharin' and 'its salt,' denying exemption to salts under Notification No. 53/84.

2. Case E/4108/91-C M/s. Trends Pharma:
- This case echoed the previous decision, emphasizing the distinction between 'saccharin' and 'saccharin sodium.' The Assistant Collector held that the products containing additional ingredients were not covered by the notification.

3. Both cases were consolidated for a joint hearing. The appellants argued that 'saccharin' in the notification should encompass various salt forms, including 'saccharin sodium,' which is commonly used as a sweetening substitute. They presented evidence from chemists and distributors supporting the generic use of 'saccharin.'

4. The Tribunal analyzed the definitions of 'saccharin' and 'saccharin sodium,' concluding that the term 'saccharin' in the notification should be interpreted generically to include preparations with saccharin as the main component. They referenced trade understanding and usage to support their decision, setting aside the impugned orders in favor of the appellants.

5. Additional Observations:
- Chemically, 'Saccharin' and 'Saccharin Sodium' are distinct chemicals, with different properties and uses. While both are sweetening agents, they are classified under Heading 29.25 in the HSN. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between medicinal and food-grade saccharin and its preparations.

6. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the common trade understanding of 'saccharin' and its salts, supporting the inclusion of 'saccharin sodium' under the notification. The judgment aligned with previous tribunal decisions and technical literature, recognizing the generic use of 'saccharin' in the market.

7. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the previous orders and granting consequential benefits to the appellants. The decision clarified the interpretation of 'saccharin' for classification purposes, ensuring a broader scope under the notification.