1988 (8) TMI 235 - AT - Central Excise

Product not classified as animal feed under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. despite use by farmers. Appeal dismissed.

HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX.

HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX. - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 304 (Tribunal) Issues:- Claim for exemption from payment of duty as animal feed under Notification No. 55/75-C.E.- Interpretation of whether the product qualifies as animal feed.- Request for setting up a Larger Bench to reconsider the matter.- Consideration of evidence and affidavits regarding the nature of the product.- Application of previous Tribunal decision in Aries Agro-Vet Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. case.Analysis:The appellants were manufacturing a product named 3-Nitro Hoechst and sought exemption from duty by claiming it as animal feed under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. The Assistant Collector rejected this claim, which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The issue revolved around whether the product qualified as animal feed, as per the relevant notification.During the proceedings, both parties acknowledged that the matter was previously addressed by the Tribunal in the Aries Agro-Vet Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. case. The appellants argued that while the issue was covered by the previous decision, they presented new evidence through affidavits to support their claim that the product was indeed considered as animal feed in commercial parlance. They requested the constitution of a Larger Bench to re-evaluate the evidence in light of the present case.The appellants contended that their product was an essential component of animal feed and should be considered as part of the feed itself. They highlighted that the product had been enjoying exemption for seven years, indicating the department's recognition of it as animal feed. On the other hand, the respondent emphasized that the Tribunal's decision in the Aries Agro-Vet Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. case should stand unless overturned in appeal, and there were no new arguments to be considered.After reviewing the facts, submissions, and affidavits, the Tribunal found that the product was indeed used by farmers and poultry breeders for feeding poultry and pigs, as affirmed by the affidavits. However, the Tribunal concluded that the product did not meet the classification criteria of animal feed as per the notification. It was noted that the product being an additive or supplement did not automatically qualify it as complete animal feed, as per established practices and literature on animal nutrition.Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the impugned product was not classifiable as animal feed and, therefore, was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 55/75, dated 1-3-75. The appeal was dismissed based on the findings and the application of the previous Tribunal decision, emphasizing that no grounds were presented to warrant a reconsideration by a Larger Bench.