9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by-product already classified under Heading 23.02. - On the whole, the case of the Revenue is not supported by any evidence. the subject goods is held to be classifiable under Heading 23.02 (SH 2302.00 of the CETA Schedule). - E/1199/2006 - A/845/2008-WZB/C-II/EB - Dated:- 17-11-2008 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and K.K. Agarwal, Member (T) Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for the Appellant. Dr. T. Tiju, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)].- The short question arising for consideration in this case pertains to classification of what is called "vitamin D3 resin in soyabean oil". How this item was generated in the process of manufacture of vitamin D3 has been explained in para 2 of the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Department has disputed this classification and wants them to be classified under S.H. No. 2936.00 thereby giving rise to litigation. The present appeal relates to the classification of Vitamin D3 resin in Soyabean oil (hereinafter referred to as the said product)." 2. With reference to the above process, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the item in question, which was cleared during the period of dispute under Heading 23.02 of the CETA Schedule, arose as one of the by-products in the course of manufacture of vitamin D3 and that it was meant for use as animal feed supplement. It is pointed out that two other similar by-products, viz., Dilvit D3 200 and Dilvit D3 500, were held to be classifiable under S.H. 2302.00 attracti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the item under consideration is to be treated as pure vitamin D3 to be classified under Heading 29.36. The learned DR has also referred to Pfizer Ltd. v. CCE C, Chandigarh - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 420 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein an items viz. Salinomycin Mycelia, which was found to be an organic compound with 35% antibiotic content, was held classifiable as antibiotic under Heading 29.41, though not chemically defined. It was further held in the said case that the item was not to be held as premix animal feed under Heading 23.02. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we note that the process of manufacture of the subject goods, given in the appeal memo, is not in dispute. Obviously, the item in question was obtained as one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
