Animal feed supplements, not veterinary medicaments, and extended limitation cannot apply without suppression of material facts.

Products intended to promote growth, improve feed utilisation, and correct nutritional deficiencies were held classifiable as preparations used in animal feeding under Heading 23.02, not as veterinary medicaments under Heading 30.03, because the record did not show therapeutic or prophylactic character essential for medicaments. The packaging described them as feed supplements, and the absence of a drug licence, together with expert opinions, supported that classification. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because the assessee had filed classification lists and declarations, and non-disclosure of end use was not suppression where it was not a required declaration. The demand therefore failed on classification and limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the products in question were classifiable as preparations used in animal feeding under Heading 23.02 or as veterinary medicaments under Heading 30.03; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation for demand could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether the products in question were classifiable as preparations used in animal feeding under Heading 23.02 or as veterinary medicaments under Heading 30.03.

Analysis: The tariff entry for Heading 23.02 covers preparations of a kind used in animal feeding, and the HSN Explanatory Notes show that supplementary feeds and pre-mixes meant to correct nutritional deficiencies fall within that heading. The packing material described the products as feed supplements and not for medicinal use, and the record showed that they were intended to promote growth, improve feed utilisation, and correct nutritional deficiencies. The materials on record did not establish therapeutic or prophylactic properties, which are essential for classification as medicaments under Heading 30.03. The absence of a drug licence and the supporting expert opinions further reinforced that the products were feed supplements and not veterinary medicines.

Conclusion: The products were classifiable under Heading 23.02 and not under Heading 30.03, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation for demand could be invoked.

Analysis: The assessee had filed classification lists and declarations claiming classification under Heading 23.02. Mere non-disclosure of end use, when not statutorily required in the classification declaration, did not amount to suppression of facts. Where the department entertained doubt, it was expected to seek clarification on use. The facts recorded did not justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained either on classification or on limitation, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A product is classifiable as a veterinary medicament only if its essential character is therapeutic or prophylactic; preparations used to supplement animal feed and correct nutritional deficiencies remain under the animal-feeding entry, and the extended limitation period cannot be invoked absent suppression of a material fact required to be disclosed.

---