Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc, New Delhi vs M/S Keva Industries on 10 February, 2012
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. Date of hearing/decision 10.02.2012 Custom Appeal No. 24 of 2011 CC, New Delhi Appellant Rep. by Sh. B.L. Soni, DR for the appellant. Vs. M/s Keva Industries Respondent
Rep. by Sh. Sudhir Malhotra with Sh. Poojan Malhotra, Advocates for the respondent.
Coram: Honble Sh. D. N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member ORDER No._____________ Per: Shri D. N. Panda:
Learned DR submits that the first appellate authority held that the goods shall fall under the heading 2501 instead of the same falling under the heading 2106. The goods covered by tariff item 2106 is food preparations not elsewhere specified or included whereas the tariff item 2501 speaks about salt (including table salt and denatured salt) and pure sodium chloride, whether or not in aqucous or containing added anti-caking or free flowing agents; sea water. Once the goods were meant for use for some purpose the classification claimed by the department under tariff item 2501 is correct.
2. Learned Counsel Sh. Sudhir Malhotra submits that the goods brought through bill of entry No. 880111 dated 09.06.2010 is mineral drops 60 ml. each bottle RSP LE (Salinesolution) (30 bottle x 6 ml.). These are liquids and the appellant made an averment that the goods are sea water containing natural mineral. Few drops i.e. 5 to 15 are added to fresh water for human intake twice a day. That curbs deficiency of mineral in the body. The intake of the impugned goods does not any way has adverse impact in the body. The goods in question is the natures gift reduces deficiency of certain mineral in the body. Therefore, his prayer is that ld. Commissioner(Appeals) having examined the goods in terms of the nature thereof has come to appropriate conclusion for classification and that does need not be disturbed..
3. Heard both sides and perused the record.
4. Learned DR for the revenue reading para 3 of the grounds of appeal. brings out that in the website of the manufacturer the goods has been described as food supplement. Such ground clearly support the case of the respondent Since the respondent has made an averment that the goods are fit for human consumption to remove certain deficiency. Now the question is to be decided is under which tariff entry the goods fall. We are satisfied that the goods being natural sea water has not gone any preparation to be called as food preparation or any other preparation.. There is no test report brought out by Revenue to discharge burden of proof to claim that the goods in question submit to tariff entry 2106 and also to satisfy that it is a preparation with or without certain composition. and has undergone process. In such circumstances, stand of respondent does not appear to be devoid on merit..
5. We had anxiety in the course of hearing to find out edibility of the goods and whether is fit for human consumption. Revenues ground does not discard the claim of human consumption and utility of the goods for the said purpose even though such goods are lying in custody of Revenue for long time. .Once we are satisfied that the goods have not undergone any preparation, there is no scope to discharge the finding of the first appellate authority made in para 6(d) of the appellate order where he has analyzed the HSN note ofheading 2501 and there is nothing contradictory evidence brought by revenue to discard his observation.
6. . Revenues appeal fails. Accordingly, that is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member (Rakesh Kumar) Technical Member Pant 2