Specific tariff classification prevails over residuary entry, sustaining customs duty and interest while penalty was deleted.

Vitamin AD3, being an intermixture of vitamins A and D3 with carriers, stabilisers and antioxidants, was classified under Heading 2936 rather than the residuary Heading 2309 because the specific tariff entry for vitamins and their intermixtures prevails over a general feed-preparation heading when read with the HSN Explanatory Notes. On that classification, the differential customs duty and consequential interest remained payable under the Customs Act. Penalty was deleted because the dispute arose from bona fide interpretational ambiguity and conflicting views on similar products during the relevant period, making penal consequences unjustified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Vitamin AD3 was classifiable under Heading 2309 or Heading 2936 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (ii) whether the demand of differential duty and interest was sustainable; (iii) whether penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 was justified.

Issue (i): Whether Vitamin AD3 was classifiable under Heading 2309 or Heading 2936 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975

Analysis: The product was an intermixture of vitamins A and D3 with carriers, stabilizers and antioxidants. The relevant tariff entries and chapter notes were read with the HSN Explanatory Notes. Heading 2309 was treated as a residuary entry for preparations of a kind used in animal feeding, whereas Heading 2936 specifically covered provitamins, vitamins and intermixtures thereof, whether or not in solvent. The Court also relied on the principle that a specific heading prevails over a general or residuary heading and held that the product did not cease to be a vitamin intermixture merely because it was intended for feed-related use.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under Heading 2936 and not Heading 2309.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of differential duty and interest was sustainable

Analysis: Since the classification under Heading 2936 was upheld, the differential duty confirmed under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 remained payable. Interest follows the principal duty liability and is compensatory in nature. Once the duty demand was sustained, the interest demand also stood supported by the statute.

Conclusion: The demand of differential duty and interest was sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 was justified

Analysis: The Court noted that there were conflicting decisions on the classification of similar products during the relevant period and that the issue involved interpretational uncertainty. In such circumstances, penal consequences were held to be unwarranted.

Conclusion: The penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The classification and revenue demand were upheld, but the penal component was deleted, resulting in partial relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, a specific entry in the tariff supported by the HSN Explanatory Notes prevails over a residuary entry, and penal liability is not justified where the dispute turns on bona fide interpretational ambiguity.

---