1983 (10) TMI 264 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Classification of products as animal feed or animal feed supplements.
2. Eligibility for exemption u/s Notification No. 55/75-C.E.
3. Relevance of Gujarat High Court judgment in Glaxo Laboratories v. State of Gujarat.
4. Validity of certificates and expert opinions submitted by the appellants.

Summary:

1. Classification of Products:
The appellant, M/s. Aries Agro-Vet Industries Pvt. Ltd., produced products like Poultrymin, Cattlemin, Yolk-O-Gold, and Boon-O-Milk, used as animal feed supplements. The Appellate Collector classified these products under Item 68 but denied exemption u/s Notification No. 55/75-C.E., which exempts excise duty on "animal feed including compounded livestock feed." The appellant argued that their products should be considered animal feed, as they are essential for a balanced diet.

2. Eligibility for Exemption:
The Appellate Collector held that the products were meant to supplement animal feed and were not themselves animal feed, thus not eligible for exemption u/s Notification No. 55/75-C.E. The appellant contended that animal feed supplements should be included within the term "animal feed," citing ISI specifications and technical literature. However, the Tribunal concluded that mineral supplements, while beneficial, do not qualify as animal feed by themselves.

3. Relevance of Gujarat High Court Judgment:
The appellant cited the Gujarat High Court judgment in Glaxo Laboratories v. State of Gujarat, which classified vitamins for cattle and poultry as animal feed. The Appellate Collector rejected this, stating that the sales-tax law entry included "concentrate," which was absent in the central excise entry. The Tribunal agreed that the judgment was not applicable to central excise laws.

4. Validity of Certificates and Expert Opinions:
The Appellate Collector rejected certificates from customers and an expert opinion from Dr. D.S. Jadhav, as they were obtained after the issue was raised and were not affidavits. The Tribunal found no strong reasons to overturn this decision, emphasizing that mineral supplements are not animal feed by themselves.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Collector's decision, stating that the products in question are not animal feed and thus not eligible for exemption u/s Notification No. 55/75-C.E. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the correctness of the lower authorities' orders.