Animal feed classification turns on commercial identity, and 3-Nitro Hoechst was held not to qualify for exemption.

3-Nitro Hoechst, used at most as an additive or supplement in poultry and pig feeding, was not complete animal feed in the relevant commercial sense and therefore did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. The Tribunal treated the issue as already covered by its earlier decision on the same product, found the affidavits and trade references insufficient to alter that view, and saw no basis to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. The product was accordingly held not classifiable as animal feed and not entitled to the exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether 3-Nitro Hoechst was classifiable as animal feed and eligible for exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. dated 1-3-1975.

Analysis: The parties accepted that the controversy had already been covered by an earlier decision of the Tribunal on the same issue. The materials relied upon by the appellant showed, at most, that the product was used as an additive or supplement in feeding poultry and pigs. A component or additive used in feeding stuff does not, by itself, become complete animal feed. The affidavits and trade references did not displace the earlier view that the product was not animal feed in the relevant commercial sense. The Bench also found no basis for referring the matter to a Larger Bench.

Conclusion: 3-Nitro Hoechst was not classifiable as animal feed and was not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. dated 1-3-1975.

---