9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (11) TMI 330 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Classification of animal feed supplement under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Analysis: Issue: Classification of animal feed supplement under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 The primary issue in this case revolves around the classification of animal feed supplements under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant argued that the supplements, comprising vitamins mixed with dilutants for enhancing livestock performance, should be classified as animal feed under Heading 23.02, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd. and the Tribunal's ruling in Li Taka Pharmaceuticals. Conversely, the revenue contended that the supplements contained medicaments, not just vitamins, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Eskayef Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. The revenue highlighted the distinction between vitamins and medicaments, emphasizing the purpose of the products in treating and preventing ailments in poultry. The appellant countered by asserting that the Eskayef case referred to an older tariff, while the current matter pertained to the new tariff. They emphasized the Tribunal's consistent stance, as seen in Tetragon and Li Taka Pharmaceuticals, that animal feed supplements should be classified under Heading 2302.00. However, the Tribunal noted the absence of a direct Supreme Court decision on medicaments and acknowledged the factual discrepancies between the cases cited. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a detailed examination in light of the Supreme Court's decisions, providing an opportunity for further clarification and appropriate classification based on factual considerations. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals by remanding the case for a thorough reevaluation to determine the proper classification of the animal feed supplements under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, considering the factual nuances and legal precedents discussed during the proceedings.
|
