Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. M/s Tetragon Chemie P. Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5833 of 1999
C.A. Nos. 5829/99, 5834-35/99, 6709/99, 7188/99, 76/2000, 658-659/2000, 892/2000 and 6588/1999
C.A. Nos. 5829/99, 5834-35/99, 6709/99, 7188/99, 76/2000, 658-659/2000, 892/2000 and 6588/1999
Petitioner: Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore
Respondent: M/s Tetragon Chemie P. Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5833 of 1999
C.A. Nos. 5829/99, 5834-35/99, 6709/99, 7188/99, 76/2000, 658-659/2000, 892/2000 and 6588/1999
C.A. Nos. 5829/99, 5834-35/99, 6709/99, 7188/99, 76/2000, 658-659/2000, 892/2000 and 6588/1999
Judges: B.N. KIRPAL, N. SANTOSH HEGDE & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 24, 2001
Head Note:
EXCISE
Excise Tariff Rules
Tariff item nos. 2302 and 2936 – Product represented as animal feed
supplements – Product consisting one or more vitamins – Used in small quantity for improving animals’ performance. Held that tribunal was right in including the product under item 2302. Appeal dismissed. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
C.A. No. 5833/99:
1. The short question that arises for consideration in the present case relates to the products of the respondents which they represent as being animal feed supplements. It is not in dispute that the products of the respondents consist of one or more vitamins mixed together with dilutants and these products are used in a small quantity for improving animals’ performance. The two competing entries are 2302 and 2936.
Entry 2302 reads as follows :
“For preparation of a kind used in animals feeding, including dogs’ and cats’ food” the rate of duty for this is nil.
Entry 2936 reads as follows :
“The rate of duty prescribed is 15% for the vitamins.”
2. The collector of central excise had come to the conclusion that the product did not fall under entry 2302 because the product had to be added in a small quantity to the main feed to get desired performance of the livestocks or to enhance the performance of the livestocks beyond the normal levels. He further observed that he would have accepted the plea of the assessees that the products were animal feed, had the product manufactured by them been directly used as such for animals feeding. The claim of the respondents herein was rejected because according to the collector, the products merely were to enhance the performance of livestocks by addition of these supplements to the animal feeds. From this it is evident that the collector regarded the products in question as animal feed supplements.
3. On further appeal to the tribunal, it came to the conclusion that animal feed supplements were rightly included in tariff item 2302 being preparation of a kind used in animal feeding including dogs’ and cats’ food. We agree with the conclusion of the tribunal that even food supplements like the products of the respondents which are used in animals feeding would fall under the heading 2302 and, therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. While affirming the decision of the tribunal, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Remaining appeals :
4. For the reasons stated in the judgment above, all other appeals are also dismissed with no order as to costs.
C.A. No. 5833/99:
1. The short question that arises for consideration in the present case relates to the products of the respondents which they represent as being animal feed supplements. It is not in dispute that the products of the respondents consist of one or more vitamins mixed together with dilutants and these products are used in a small quantity for improving animals’ performance. The two competing entries are 2302 and 2936.
Entry 2302 reads as follows :
“For preparation of a kind used in animals feeding, including dogs’ and cats’ food” the rate of duty for this is nil.
Entry 2936 reads as follows :
“The rate of duty prescribed is 15% for the vitamins.”
2. The collector of central excise had come to the conclusion that the product did not fall under entry 2302 because the product had to be added in a small quantity to the main feed to get desired performance of the livestocks or to enhance the performance of the livestocks beyond the normal levels. He further observed that he would have accepted the plea of the assessees that the products were animal feed, had the product manufactured by them been directly used as such for animals feeding. The claim of the respondents herein was rejected because according to the collector, the products merely were to enhance the performance of livestocks by addition of these supplements to the animal feeds. From this it is evident that the collector regarded the products in question as animal feed supplements.
3. On further appeal to the tribunal, it came to the conclusion that animal feed supplements were rightly included in tariff item 2302 being preparation of a kind used in animal feeding including dogs’ and cats’ food. We agree with the conclusion of the tribunal that even food supplements like the products of the respondents which are used in animals feeding would fall under the heading 2302 and, therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. While affirming the decision of the tribunal, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Remaining appeals :
4. For the reasons stated in the judgment above, all other appeals are also dismissed with no order as to costs.
