9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Classification of products under Tariff Item 14(E) or 68 for excise duty exemption, entitlement to refund of excess excise duty paid.
Summary: 1. The petitioners, a company manufacturing animal feed supplements, challenged a classification order by the Collector under Tariff Item 14(E) instead of 68 for excise duty purposes. 2. The products in question, known as animal feed supplements, were held not to fall under Tariff Item 14(E) which pertains to medicines, but rather under the residuary Item 68 due to their nature as nutritional supplements for animal feed. 3. The respondents argued that even under Tariff Item 68, the products were not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 55 of 1975. However, a subsequent amendment broadened the exemption to include animal feed supplements, leading to the petitioners' eligibility for full exemption. 4. Previous judicial precedent established that products used to supplement animal feed qualify as "animal feeds" for the purpose of tax classification, supporting the petitioners' claim for exemption under the relevant notification. 5. The amendment to include "animal feed supplements" in the exemption notification was deemed clarificatory, encompassing products that enhance animal feed quality, similar to animal feed concentrates. 6. The petitioners were granted a refund of excess excise duty paid during specific periods when they were incorrectly charged under Tariff Item 68 without exemption benefits, with directions for the respondents to process the refunds promptly. 7. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing the respondents to pay the costs of the petition and refund the excise duty amounts as determined within specified timelines, thereby concluding the matter satisfactorily.
|
