TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (7) TMI 117
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s common in all these appeals. For that reason, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') has disposed of the appeals by a common order. Hence, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are the following : 3.The appellant-Corporation imported six consignments of goods (Pre mix of vitamin Ad-3 Mix (feed grade) at Bombay and seven consignments of similar goods at Calcutta. These consignments were assessed to duty under the Heading 29.01/45(17) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff Act. The Corporation paid the duty. Later on it claimed refund of the duty paid as c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authority at Bombay. 6.The Tribunal while unanimously holding that the goods imported fell under Heading 29.01/45(17) of the Customs Tariff Act differed on the question of exemption claimed by the appellant. The minority view was that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of exemption claimed by the appellant, while the majority held otherwise. 7.Aggrieved by the common order of the Tribunal, these appeals are preferred. Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- corporation, supporting the minority view of the Tribunal invited our attention to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Glindia Ltd. v. Union of India - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 479 wherein an identical question arose for consideration and the learned Singl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10.The relevant Exemption Notification 234/82, dated 1-11-1982 read as follows : Exemption to certain specified goods. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 104/82-Central Excise, dated the 28th February, 1982, the Central Government hereby exempts goods of the description specified in the Schedule hereto annexed and falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (I of 1944), from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of the said Act. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . Animal feed includin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the goods imported were pre-mix of vitamin AD-3 (feed grade) not for medicinal use. Again there is no dispute that the said pre-mix of vitamin AD-3 (feed grade) is an animal feed supplement. Even the majority view of the Tribunal proceeded on that footing. But they took the view that animal feed supplements by themselves are not `animal feeds' for qualifying exemption under the notification dated 1-11-1982. 13.Now, the question whether the `animal feed supplement' would fall under the Exemption Notification dated 1-11-1982. As noticed earlier similar question was considered by the Bombay High Court and the learned Judge expressed the view as follows : "The preparations in question are used to supplement animal feed. Sometimes anima....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1975. In the case of the petitioners themselves namely Glaxo Laboratories India Ltd. v. The State of Gujarat reported in 1979 43 Sales Tax Cases, page 386, the Gujarat High Court was required to consider whether certain vitamin products including Vitablend WM Forte which were used for supplementing cattle and poultry feed should be classified as "cattle feed" within the meaning of Entry 21 of Schedule I of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 or "poultry feed" within the meaning of Entry 22 of the Schedule I of that Act. The Gujarat High Court has held that the terms "cattle feed" and "poultry feed" must include not only that food which is supplied to domestic animals or birds as an essential ration for the maintenance of life but also that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urable to the assessee in matters of taxation has to be preferred. 14.We have carefully gone through the minority and the majority views of the Tribunal. We find that Shri K. Gopal Hegde who has dealt with the issue in extenso, has taken note of the ratio laid down by the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts as well as a subsequent decision of the Tribunal itself in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Punjab Bone Mills (Appeal No. 615/85-C with E/Cross/64/1988-C for coming to a conclusion that the goods imported by the appellants are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 234/82. However, this view was minority view and, therefore, the exemption claimed by the appellant was denied. The majority view, it appears, was influenced by....