1991 (3) TMI 231

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... em Supra. 2. We have heard Shri Rohit Tandon, learned advocate for the appellants and Smt. V. Zutshi, learned Departmental Representative for the respondent. The learned advocate has argued that the appellants exported 10 consignments of de-oiled rice-bran and soya bean meal. De-oiled rice-bran meal was exported in February, 1977 and soya bean meal was exported during 1977 to August, 1978. The goods were exported on payment of Export Duty as Animal Feed under Item 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. They filed applications claiming refund of duty. The applications were rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs holding that the products were Animal Feed. The order of the Assistant Collector was upheld by the Col .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... feed within the meaning of Entry 22 of Schedule I of that Act, Gujarat High Court considered the issue and held that the terms Cattle Feed and Poultry Feed must include not only that feed which is supplied to domestic animals or birds as an essential ration for the maintenance of life, but also that food which is supplied over and above the maintenance requirements for growth or fattening and for production purposes such as for reproduction, for production of milk, eggs, meat etc. or for efficient output of work. The Hon ble Bombay High Court held that the aforesaid reasoning would apply to the case before it also. Following the decision of Gujarat High Court, the Hon ble Bombay High Court held that the animal feed supplements were al .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ded to the feed. Inasmuch as the supplements and additives are in the nature of animal feed, the addition of the item of animal feed supplements to exemption Notification No. 55/75-C.E. later by Notification No. 6/84-C.E., dated 15-2-1984 can only be held as clarificatory in nature. The term animal feed was wide enough to cover the goods in question. 4. The only decision relied on by the learned advocate is the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Surendra Cotton Oil Mills (Supra). The Revenue filed appeal against that decision which is pending in the Supreme Court. This decision did not take into consideration the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Glindia Ltd. (Supra). Bombay High Court judgment was not cited before .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X