TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (12) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hite Sesame extraction meal 25% (c) Toasted cotton seed extraction meal 25% (d) Linseed extraction meal 10% (e) Kardi seed extractional meal 5% (f) Wheat bran 10% 2. That on this animal compound feed being ready, the Petitioners, (as per the terms of the contract) submitted the samples thereof to the General Superintendence Company (i) Private Ltd. who inter alia, certified that the said feed was made up of the aforesaid ingredients. 3. That the Petitioners then made arrangements to ship the said goods to Poland, when the question of paying duty on the same cropped up. The Petitioners, by their Attorneys' letter dated 24th September, 1971 addressed to the Assistant Collector of Customs, inter alia, set out t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Customs held that on the break-up of the ingredients of the said animal compound feed it was apparent that the bulk of the animal compound feed consisted of de-oiled cakes and hence the same came within the compass of Section 19 of the Customs Act and fell under Item No. 19 of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Tariff, and were hence dutiable. 5. It is the Petitioners' case that in view of this order passed, the Petitioners, on the 2nd October, 1971 withdrew Misc. Petition No. 658 of 1971. They thereafter paid a sum of Rs. 74,934.47 p. under protest and cleared the consignment. On or about 5th November, 1971, the Petitioners made an application for the refund of this amount. On or about 16th December, 1971, the Petitioners filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ermined is the nature of the goods. 8. Now, according to the Petitioners, the consignment in question of the animal compound feed was made up of the following ingredients :- (a) Groundnut extraction meal 25% (b) White Sesame extraction meal 25% (c) Toasted cotton seed extraction meal 25% (d) Linseed extraction meal 10% (e) Kardi seed extractional meal 5% (f) Wheat bran 10% This is borne out by the certificate dated 24th September, 1971 of the General Superintendence Company (I) Pvt. Ltd., and the shipping bill dated 25th September, 1971 (and which shipping bill has been accepted by the 3rd Respondent as correct). Furthermore, the Respondents have, at the hearing of the Petition, not disputed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ught not to have been taken into consideration. These affidavits clearly go to show that in the market animal compound feed is known as a single commodity clearly different from de-oiled cakes. 10. If this commodity is a single commodity, then this commodity must be considered as a whole and cannot be considered from the point of view of an ingredient which goes to make up this commodity. This is also the view taken in the case of The English Electric Co. of India Ltd. v. The Superintendent, Central Excise and Others, 1979 E.L.T. (J 39) = A.I.R. 1975 Madras, 393. Bearing this in mind and rooking to the facts of this case, it is apparent that the authorities in question have ignored this principle and have proceeded on the basis that sinc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of a case where goods consist of "set of articles". In the present case, the goods viz. the animal compound feed does not consist of a set of articles for, as stated above, there is only one identifiable article viz. animal compound feed. In order to attract the provisions of Section 19 there must be a collection of articles or otherwise there must be a collection or aggregation of two or more individual and severally identifiable articles, which is not the case here. In the present case, the goods are made up of several ingredients, which have all lost their identities and have become inseparable even by common processes, and have in fact emerged as a single marketable product. Section 19 of the Customs Act has, therefore, no application ....