1996 (7) TMI 397 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of "spert" as a milk food under Entry 14 of Notification No. 17/70
2. Exemption of the product in question under the said notification

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal regarding the classification of a product called "spert" as a milk food under Entry 14 of Notification No. 17/70 and its exemption from excise duty. The Assistant Collector initially ruled that "spert" was a milk food and not exempt. However, the Collector (Appeals) overturned this decision, leading to the department appealing to the Tribunal.

The Revenue argued that the product containing skimmed milk powder should be classified as a milk food under the notification, emphasizing the constituents of the product over its commercial nomenclature. They sought to set aside the Collector (Appeals) order and restore the Assistant Collector's decision.

Conversely, the respondents contended that "spert" was a protein-rich food supplement, not a milk food, citing a previous Tribunal order in their favor. They relied on the Tribunal's earlier judgment in a similar case involving "spert," which held the product was exempt from duty under the notification.

The Tribunal deliberated on the nature of "spert," with the department arguing it was a milk food, while the respondents maintained it was a protein supplement. The Tribunal referenced its previous decision where it determined that "spert" did not fall under Entry 14 of the notification and was thus exempt from duty. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of a precise definition of "milk food" in the context of the case.

Based on previous judgments and expert opinions, the Tribunal concluded that "spert" was not a milk food but a protein supplement, entitling it to exemption under Notification 17/70. Upholding the earlier order, the Tribunal rejected the department's appeal, affirming that "spert" was exempt from excise duty under the notification.