Shrimp seeds unfit for human consumption were outside Chapter 3, defeating duty, interest and penalty demands.

Shrimp seeds in the post-larva stage, being unfit for human consumption on the facts, were treated as outside Chapter 3 and not excisable in the relevant condition, so the duty demand on those clearances failed. The Tribunal also distinguished job-work clearances made for other exporters from the appellant's own alleged DTA clearances and found no convincing evidence of suppression; as a result, extended limitation, interest and penalties could not be sustained. The absence of Development Commissioner permission did not, by itself, validate a duty demand where no excisable liability otherwise survived.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether shrimp seeds cleared into the Domestic Tariff Area were excisable and liable to duty under Chapter 3 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (ii) Whether the demands, interest and penalties could be sustained on the alleged DTA clearances including job-work clearances.

Issue (i): Whether shrimp seeds cleared into the Domestic Tariff Area were excisable and liable to duty under Chapter 3 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The goods were found to be shrimp seeds in the post-larva stage and, on the facts, not fit for human consumption at that stage. The Chapter Notes and HSN guidance were read as excluding items unfit for human consumption from Chapter 3. Even apart from classification, the clearances were made without permission of the Development Commissioner, so the duty consequence could not be sustained on the footing adopted in the order under challenge.

Conclusion: The shrimp seeds were held not excisable in the relevant condition and the duty demand on that item was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the demands, interest and penalties could be sustained on the alleged DTA clearances including job-work clearances.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that goods manufactured on job-work basis for other exporters could not be equated with the appellant's own DTA clearances. It also found no convincing evidence of suppression of facts, and therefore the extended limitation and consequential levy of interest and penalties could not survive. The objection based on classification was also rendered academic in view of the conclusion on non-excisability and the absence of sustainable duty liability.

Conclusion: The demands of duty, interest and penalties on the disputed clearances were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded in full, the impugned order was set aside, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods that are not fit for human consumption in the relevant condition are outside the relevant tariff chapter for excise purposes, and clearances without the requisite developmental permission do not by themselves validate a duty demand where no excisable liability otherwise survives.

---