TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Di-Calcium Phosphate exempt under animal feed category, Tribunal rejects Revenue's appeal</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH Versus PUNJAB BONE MILLS</h3> The Tribunal upheld that Di-Calcium Phosphate animal feed grade qualifies for exemption under Notification No. 55/75-CE as it falls within the scope of ... Refund - Limitation when provisional assessment finalised Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for exemption u/s Notification No. 55/75-CE.2. Time-bar for filing the refund claim.Summary of Judgment:1. Eligibility for Exemption u/s Notification No. 55/75-CE:The respondents manufacture Di-Calcium Phosphate of animal feed grade and claimed exemption from duty under Notification No. 55/75-CE, which exempts 'animal feed including compound live stock feed.' The original authority rejected the refund claim, but the Collector (Appeals) allowed it, stating that the product falls within the scope of the exemption notification. The Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, argued that Di-Calcium Phosphate is an animal feed supplement and not animal feed, thus not eligible for exemption before 15.02.1984. However, the Tribunal observed that the product is essential for animal nutrition and, based on the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat's judgment in Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, held that supplements and additives are considered animal feed. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that Di-Calcium Phosphate animal feed grade is covered by the exemption notification.2. Time-bar for Filing the Refund Claim:The department contended that the refund claim filed on 28.03.1980 was time-barred as it was beyond the six-month period stipulated u/r 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The respondents argued that the assessments were provisional, and the finalization communication was received on 30.06.1980, making the claim within time. The Tribunal found that the assessments were indeed provisional, and there was no rebuttal from the Revenue. Consequently, the claim was not hit by the time-bar.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, holding that Di-Calcium Phosphate animal feed grade qualifies for exemption under Notification No. 55/75-CE and that the refund claim was filed within the permissible time frame.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
