Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2007 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (7) TMI 391 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - mixing Vitamin-E with silica - Goods appropriately be classifiable under CTH 2936.28 attracting basic Customs duty (a) 35% and under CETH 2936.00 attracting CVD @ 16% - demand notice issued for recovery of the differential amount of duty from the importer - HELD THAT:- The Chemical Examiner’s report confirms that the item is a preparation containing Vitamin-E and silica and that such compositions are known to find use as additives in animal feeds. The Chemical Examiner, in his subsequent clarification, appears to have confirmed that silica was used as a carrier for the vitamin. The appellant has no case that the goods imported by the respondents was used in any manner other than as an animal feed additive. For these reasons, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly classified the goods under Heading 23.09 and SH 2309.90. In the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories [1994 (5) TMI 67 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], the Tribunal had classified synthetic preparations containing mixtures of vitamins under Heading 29.36 of the Schedule to the CETA despite the presence of some minerals and materials therein. This decision of the Tribunal has been relied on by the appellant. But, as rightly pointed out by the consultant, the said decision was set aside by the Apex Court [2002 (12) TMI 660 - SC ORDER]. The Apex Court classified the above synthetic preparations under Heading 23.02 of the CETA Schedule. It is also noticed that a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tetragon Chemie P. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1998 (9) TMI 390 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], classified animal feed supplements under Heading 23.02 of the CETA Schedule after rejecting the Department’s claim for classification as vitamins under Heading 29.36. The item considered in that case was a preparation containing vitamins mixed with dilutants and, which was used as an additive to the main feed for livestock. We find that the Tribunal’s decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in Collector v. Tetragon Chemie P. Ltd.[2001 (7) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT]. It thus appears that the appellate Commissioner’s order impugned in the present appeal is supported by the Apex Court’s decision in the cases of Ranbaxy Laboratories (supra) and Tetragon Chemie (supra). In the result, the Revenue’s appeal gets dismissed.
|