2016 (5) TMI 185 - SC - Customs

Eligibility - Benefit of exemption Notification No. 20/99 dated 28.02.1999 - Whether Vitamin E-50 is classifiable under Chapter 2309.00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as Prawn Feed and therefore eligible for exemption - Description of exempted goods in the notification is Prawn Feed - Held that - on the strength of the judgment of larger Bench in the case of Sun Export Corporation, Bombay vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay and Another 1997 (7) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , it has been contended on behalf of the assessee that prawn feed covered by the exemption notification No.20/99 must be understood to include prawn feed supplements which is what the Vitamin E-50 involved in the present case is. In paragraph 13 of the Order of this Court in Sun s case, views have been expressed with regard to the interpretation of an exemption notification to support the conclusion reached. The same may require a reconsideration. That apart, in the referral order it has been noticed that Sun s case has been distinguished in Collector of Central Excise, Guntur vs. Surendra Cotton Oil Mills & Fert. Co. 2000 (12) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . The basis on which the said distinction has been drawn needs to be further pursued. Therefore, the opinion expressed in Sun s case may require a reconsideration.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of Vitamin E-50 under Chapter 2309.00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as "Prawn Feed" for the benefit of partial exemption from duty under Notification No. 20/99 dated 28.02.1999.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court examined whether Vitamin E-50 could be classified as "Prawn Feed" under Chapter 2309.00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, making it eligible for partial exemption from duty under Notification No. 20/99. The Court referred to the case of 'Sun Export Corporation, Bombay vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay and Another' (1997) 6 SCC 564, where an exemption notification dealt with 'animal feed,' and amendments included 'animal feed supplements' and 'animal concentrates.' The Court held that the amendment was clarificatory and retrospective, indicating that 'animal feed always included animal feed supplements.' The assessee argued that 'prawn feed' should encompass 'prawn feed supplements,' such as Vitamin E-50 in this case. The Court noted the need to reconsider the interpretation of exemption notifications based on the Sun's case and the distinction made in 'Collector of Central Excise, Guntur vs. Surendra Cotton Oil Mills & Fert. Co.' 2001 (127) ELT 3 (SC).

The Court, after thorough consideration, tentatively concluded that the opinion in Sun's case might require reconsideration. As a co-ordinate Bench, they decided not to proceed further and directed the Registry to present the case to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. This decision indicates the significance of clarifying the scope of exemption notifications and the need for a reevaluation of previous interpretations in light of evolving legal principles and precedents.