Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (12) TMI 335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... classification under T.I. 1B but it would be classifiable under T.I. 68 and issued show cause notice for the purpose. The Assistant Collector considered the reply to the show cause notice and found that in their own Medical Times January and March, 1996 their product probofex is mentioned. The Assistant Collector held that the product probofex is not an item of food going by the general usage of the term. He also did not accept the certificate given by the Food and Drug Control Authority that the product will not fall under the category of drug. He referred to their own Medical Times journal where the product was recommended for building up haemoglobin with a specific dosage. The Assistant Collector found that from the literature of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oods here are marketed as food supplement. The ld. SDR referred to the Concise Oxford Dictionary meaning of the term supplement as a thing or part added to remedy deficiencies. Reference was also made to Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. Union of India - 1980 (6) E.L.T. 65 (A.P.) to say that the word food has no definition of universal application and it varies from statute to statute. Reliance was also placed on the Government of India decision In Re : Asian Chemical Works - 1982 (10) E.L.T. 609A wherein it was held that the scope of the word food under the Food Adulteration Act will be relevant to that Act alone. Therefore certification by Food and Drug Control Authorities will not be of relevance for c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2-C, dated 18-3-1992) all these products were having ingredients which are comparable with the present product and the ingredient protein hydrolysate is common to all which is one of the grounds taken in the show cause notice for excluding the item from coverage of 1B which the ld. Counsel also argues that in the case of animal food and animal food supplement there is a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sun Export Corporation v. C.C., Bombay - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) which lays down that animal food supplement will be covered by the generic term animal food. The ld. Counsel submitted that the principle laid down in this judgment would also be applied in the present case to hold that even as a food supplement the product will be covered b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... artment sought to classify under Item 68 of CET. The Tribunal upheld the classification under Item 1B. This decision was followed in the case of Collector v. Li Take Pharmaceuticals in Order No. 735/91-C, wherein also the product considered was called Prolita Syrup whose classification was claimed under Tariff Item 1B of CET and the Department sought to review the approval of the classification so as to bring it under Item 14E of CET, as patent or proprietary medicine. Following these two decisions of the Tribunal another decision was rendered in the case of Adonis Laboratories v. Collector, Final Order No. 109/92-C. The Tribunal held that the product called Aminoglobin would be correctly classifiable under 1B of CET and not under Item .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ra. In the Adonis Laboratories, decision while following the above two precedents, the Tribunal considered the view of the Drugs Controller that the product Aminoglobin is marketed as food article and is not a drug. 9. However, the Tribunal in the Aaron Pharmaceuticals case in 1994 had no occasion to consider the precedents cited above because these were not cited before the Tribunal and hence proceeded to decide the matter on its finding that the product is obviously not of a type considered as prepared or preserved food. This decision of the Tribunal has apparently been passed per incuriam of the precedent decisions which were based on some High Court decisions on the subject as noted above and therefore it will be more appropriate fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates