9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether de-oiled rice-bran and soya bean meal exported by the appellants were liable to Export Duty as Animal Feed under Item 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Analysis: The appellants argued that the products were not liable for Export Duty as Animal Feed, citing a Tribunal decision in a similar case. They claimed refund of duty, which was rejected by the lower authorities. The appellants contended that de-oiled rice-bran and soya bean meal were not animal feed per se. However, the respondent relied on a Bombay High Court judgment stating that animal feed includes supplements for better nourishment. The High Court held that animal feed encompasses feed beyond essential ration, including supplements for growth, reproduction, and production purposes. Additionally, the respondent referred to a Tribunal decision where Di-calcium Phosphate was considered animal feed, emphasizing the wide scope of the term. The Tribunal noted that the only decision relied upon by the appellants was not conclusive as the Revenue had filed an appeal against it. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following High Court judgments over its own decisions when not considered earlier. The Tribunal concluded that based on the judgments of the Bombay High Court, Gujarat High Court, and its own previous decision, the appellants' products fell under the definition of "Animal Feed" and were subject to Export Duty under Item 21 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision and dismissed the appeals.
|
