2006 (9) TMI 307 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods as animal feed supplement under Chapter heading 2302.00, classification of Veldot and Tylan-100 premix under Chapter sub-heading No. 3003.10, classification of COBAN 100 under 2302.00, relevance of previous tribunal decisions, appeal filed in Supreme Court against orders, acceptance of tribunal decisions by the department.

The judgment revolves around the classification of goods as an animal feed supplement under Chapter heading 2302.00. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) classified the goods as such, but the CBEC found this classification to be improper. The Commissioner (Adjudication) was criticized for ordering the classification of Veldot, Tylan-100 under Chapter Heading 2302.00 based on a previous tribunal decision in the case of Tetragon Chemie v. CCE, Bangalore. The appellant argued that a civil appeal against the decision was pending in the Supreme Court and the department had not accepted the Larger Bench's decision.

Another issue raised was the classification of the product COBAN 100 under 2302.00, also based on a previous tribunal decision in the case of Li-Taka Pharmaceuticals & Others v. CCE. The Commissioner's classification was challenged as the Civil Appeal against the decision was pending in the Supreme Court, and the department had not accepted the CEGAT decision. The respondent cited the Apex Court's decision in CCE, Bangalore v. Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd., where the appeal against the Larger Bench's decision was dismissed, indicating a similar outcome in this case.

The judgment highlighted the relevance of previous tribunal decisions and the acceptance of departmental decisions. It referenced a case where the Supreme Court allowed a Civil Appeal against a CEGAT decision regarding the classification of synthetic preparations containing mixtures of vitamins. The issue of classification of similar products, termed as coxistacs, was considered well settled by the Tetragon Chemie decision. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the grounds alleged in the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no valid grounds to uphold the Revenue's appeal based on the arguments presented regarding the classification of the goods and the relevance of previous tribunal decisions. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper classification and the acceptance of decisions by the department and higher courts, ensuring consistency and legal correctness in such matters.