9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (5) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff item 68 manufactured by the appellants and confirmation of demand raised in the show cause notice dated 10-3-83. Appeal No. 2845/89-C deals with the rejection of refund claim of Rs. 6,50,566.69 P. filed by the appellants for the period 15-5-75 to 14-2-84 in respect of the said product. There is no dispute in these appeals with regard to the classification of the product Di-Calcium Phosphate under Tariff item 68. The appellants had sought for exemption for their product Di-Calcium Phosphate as animal feed including live stock feed under Notification No. 104/82, dated 28-2-82 and No. 234/82, dated 1-11-82. 2. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Anand Range, Anand by show cause notice dated 10-3-83, called upon the appellants to show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een granted regarding the payment or there is no provision subsequently made in cases where duty has been paid by the manufacturer, the concept of granting the refund is beyond the scope when no statutory provision is made in the rule, act or in the relevant notification. The Collector (Appeals) also rejected the contention of the appellants that notification has given relief to those who did not pay. It will amount to discrimination if they are denied the refund as incorrect and unacceptable and therefore, not acceptable. He also stated that the refund cannot be entertained as the appellants had not filed any appeal against the classification of the product denying the benefit of Notification No. 55/75 as amended by Notification No. 115/7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has now been answered by the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Spinning Mills [1988 (33) E.L.T. 115]. 5. Shri Chandersekhar, learned Departmental Representative arguing for the Revenue, submitted that the Collector (Appeals) was right in following the ruling as given in Aires Agrovet (supra). The Tribunal had taken a view in this ruling that Di-Calcium Phosphate is akin to the vitamins and it cannot be considered as animal feed. He brought to our notice the latest ruling of the Tribunal in the case of Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd. as reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 295 wherein it has been held that Di-Calcium Phosphate is a bone product. Shri Chandersekhar submitted that the appellants had claimed the product as animal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be considered as animal feed. However, the Tribunal in the case of Punjab Bone Product (supra) specifically went into the question of Di-Calcium Phosphate (animal feed grade) being covered by the term Bone product and eligible for exemption under Notification No. 55/75 as amended by Notification No. 221/79, dated 30-6-79. The Tribunal held Di-Calcium Phosphate is covered by the term. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Protein Products (supra) has considered Ossein and gelatine as bone products obtained by chemical treatment of bone and eligible to exemption as bone products under Notification No. 55/75 as amended by Notification No. 221/79. The Tribunal again considered the product Di-Calcium Phosphate as satisfying the ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
