2000 (12) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ariff Heading No. 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The core question thus relates to the factum of export duty being leviable thereon during the relevant period - CEGAT has answered that since these products are only ingredients of animal feed and not 'animal feed' by themselves, the same would not come within the ambit of the term 'animal feed' as detailed in the statute. 2.Shri Mukul Rohtagi, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant, very strongly contended that differentiation, there might be as regards the product, but the factum of the product being an ingredient or a supplement to the animal feed would definitely bring it within the scope of "Heading 21" of the Customs Tariff A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnot be termed to be animal feed. It may be a component or ingredient or a basic stuff, but it cannot be termed to be animal feed. A very common example on this score remains that of oil cakes - whereas oil cakes are used as protein supplement in livestock food stuffs and mixed with the animal feed, oil cakes by themselves cannot be termed to be an animal feed, since animal feed not only consists of its ingredients but the total bulk in form, shape and size which would feed an animal. Animal feed thus cannot be an ingredient or a part of the feed but in its entirety and as a whole taken together with even vitamins and calcium mix. 6.The whole substance thus is the mix and not any specific item as such. Reference has been made to the deci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e duty paid as countervailing duty contending inter alia that the goods imported were classifiable under Item 23.01/07 as "Animal Feed" and as per Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982, those goods were exempted from levy of duty. Accordingly, applications were filed for refund of the countervailing duty/additional duty paid on such imports. The Assistant Collector (Refunds) concerned rejected the claim of the appellant holding that the goods imported were assessable to duty under the heading 29.01/45(17) of the then prevailing First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act read with Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and therefore, the Exemption Notification dated 1-11-1982 was of no avail to the Corporation. Aggrieved by the reject....