2008 (3) TMI 206 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of Neurotrat - fixed close combination of Vitamin 1 Vitamin-6 and Vitamin 12 whether it is classifiable as medicament under SH 3003.10 as claimed by the appellants or as admixture of Vitamins under CH 2936.00 as claimed by revenue impugned product has therapeutic or prophylactic value as evident from directions issued by Drug Controller General - claim of the appellants for classification of Neurotrat under CH 3003.10 as medicament is sustainable

Summary

Issues:
Classification of 'Neurotrat' - medicament under sub-heading 3003.10 or as admixture of Vitamins under Chapter Heading 2936.00.

Analysis:
The issue in this appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai was the classification of 'Neurotrat' - a fixed dose combination of Vitamin 1, Vitamin-6, and Vitamin 12. The appellants claimed it should be classified as a medicament under sub-heading 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, while the Commissioner held it should be classified as an admixture of Vitamins under Chapter Heading 2936.00. The Tribunal referred to the case of E. Merck (India) Ltd v. CCE, Mumbai, where it was accepted that a similar fixed dose combination of Vitamins B1, B6, and B12 had therapeutic value and was classifiable as a medicament under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Tribunal noted that the Drugs Controller General had issued a letter in 1996 confirming the therapeutic value of such combinations. The Tribunal found that the product in question, 'Neurotrat,' should be classified as a medicament under Heading 3003.10 based on previous decisions and expert opinions.

The Departmental Representative (D.R.) referred to a judgment of the Delhi High Court upholding a notification prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or distribution of fixed dose combinations of Vitamins B1, B6, and B12 for human use. The D.R. argued that based on this judgment, the product in dispute could only be classified under CET Heading 2936.00. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case, stating that the issue of classification had already been decided in previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal highlighted that the validity of the notification was upheld based on specific provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which did not affect the classification issue at hand. The Tribunal emphasized that previous decisions, including the case of E. Merck (India) Ltd, had established the therapeutic value of fixed dose combinations of Vitamins B1, B6, and B12, leading to their classification as medicaments under Chapter 30.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the appellants regarding the classification of 'Neurotrat' under Heading 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as a medicament. The impugned order demanding differential duty and imposing penalties was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the established therapeutic value of the product and consistent classification principles applied in previous decisions.