2012(02)LCX0191

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

S/Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) and Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)

Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi

Versus

Keva Industries

Final Order No. C/A/55/2012-CusXPB), dated 10-2-2012 in Appeal No. C/24/2011

Advocated By -

Shri B.L. Soni, DRJor the Appellant.
S/Shri Sudhir Malhotra and Poojan Malhotra, Advocates, for the Respondent.

[Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. -

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 aqueous 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 9-6-2010 is mineral drops 60 ml. each bottle RSP LE (Saline solution) (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 in any way has adverse impact on the body. The goods in question is the nature's gift and 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 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 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. Revenue's 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 discard the finding of the first appellate authority made in para 6(d) of the appellate order where he has analyzed the HSN note of heading 2501 and there is nothing contradictory evidence brought by revenue to discard his observation.


6. Revenue's appeal fails. Accordingly, that is dismissed.


(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

Equivalent 2013 (292) ELT 0090 (Tri. - Del.)