1996 (1) TMI 202 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of exemption under Notification No. 17/93-Cus., dated 28-2-1993 for "Prawn Feed Supplement".
2. Interpretation of the term "Prawn Feed" in the context of the exemption notification.
3. Applicability of previous judicial decisions on similar exemption notifications.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Exemption under Notification No. 17/93-Cus., dated 28-2-1993 for "Prawn Feed Supplement":

The primary issue was whether the imported "Prawn Feed Supplement" qualified for exemption under Notification No. 17/93-Cus., dated 28-2-1993, which exempts prawn feed falling under sub-heading 2301.20 or 2309.90. The appellants argued that "Prawn Feed Supplement" should be included within the term "Prawn Feed" and thus be eligible for the exemption. The respondent countered that "Prawn Feed" and "Prawn Feed Supplement" are distinct and only the former is eligible for exemption.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Prawn Feed" in the Context of the Exemption Notification:

The appellants' counsel argued that the notification's reference to sub-heading 2309.90, which covers "other" preparations used in animal feeding, should include "Prawn Feed Supplement" as it falls under this sub-heading. They cited previous judicial decisions to support their argument that supplementary feeds should be considered part of the general category of feeds.

The respondent contended that the notification specifically exempts "Prawn Feed" and not "Prawn Feed Supplement". They argued that the classification under sub-heading 2309.90 includes both complete and supplementary feeds, but the exemption is limited to "Prawn Feed" as explicitly stated in the notification.

3. Applicability of Previous Judicial Decisions on Similar Exemption Notifications:

The appellants referred to decisions in the cases of "Glindia Ltd. v. Union of India" and "Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Punjab Bone Mills" to argue that supplementary feeds should be included under the general term "feed". They emphasized that previous judgments have interpreted similar terms broadly to include supplements.

The respondent countered that these decisions were based on different notifications and contexts. They argued that the principle of strict interpretation of exemption notifications, as established by the Supreme Court in "Novopan India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs", should apply. According to this principle, exemptions should be construed strictly, and any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the revenue.

Separate Judgments Delivered:

Judicial Member (G.A. Brahma Deva):
The Judicial Member held that the notification should be construed strictly and that "Prawn Feed Supplement" does not fall within the exemption provided for "Prawn Feed". The notification explicitly mentions "Prawn Feed" and not its supplements, and thus the benefit of the exemption cannot be extended to the imported goods.

Technical Member (K. Sankararaman):
The Technical Member dissented, arguing that the term "Prawn Feed" should be interpreted to include "Prawn Feed Supplement". He cited previous judicial decisions and the explanatory notes in the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) to support his view that the exemption should apply to the imported goods.

Third Member (R. Jayaraman):
The Third Member agreed with the Judicial Member, emphasizing the principle of strict interpretation of exemption notifications. He concluded that "Prawn Feed Supplement" is distinct from "Prawn Feed" and does not qualify for the exemption under Notification No. 17/93-Cus.

Final Decision:
In view of the majority opinion, the appeal was dismissed, and the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 17/93-Cus., dated 28-2-1993, was denied to the imported "Prawn Feed Supplement".