TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same is clearly distinguishable and, in fact, does not lend any assistance in the matter in issue. It is on this perspective it cannot but be held that the oil cakes and rice bran as exported by the respondents cannot thus be termed to be animal feed warranting invocation of Heading 21 of the export tariff under the Customs Act. The judgment of the Tribunal cannot be faulted in any way. Appeal dismissed. - 3732-3760 & 3762-3774 of 1989 - - - Dated:- 15-12-2000 - U.C. Banerjee and Brijesh Kumar, JJ. [Judgment per : Umesh C. Banerjee, J.] - This batch of appeals against the order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) pertain to classification of de-oiled rice bran extraction, niger seed extraction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot within the ambit of the item does not and cannot arise. 4.Be it recorded that the term 'animal feed' has not been defined in the Tariff Act and as such we are left with no alternative excepting noting the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word or the user and understanding of the word in common parlance. In IS 9703-1980 it is found in para 0.2 as below :- "In the field of animal feeds manufacturing industry a large number of feeding stuffs (ingredients) are utilised, which may be by-products of other industries and also subjected to certain processing before utilisation". 5.IS 9703 thus recognises a distinction between the feeding stuffs (ingredients) and animal feed. The understanding of the Indian Standard Institution as referre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'animal feed' and 'animal feed supplements' and by reason of the exemption notification for animal feed, this Court came to a definite conclusion that animal feed includes animal feed supplements and as such M/s. Sun Exports Corporation was declared to be entitled to refund under the relevant exemption notification. The brief facts as appears from the decision (at page 565) leading to these appeals are as follows : "The appellant Corporation imported six consignments of goods [Pre-mix of Vitamin AD-3 Mix (feed grade)] at Bombay and seven consignments of similar goods at Calcutta. These consignments were assessed to duty under the heading 29.01/45(17) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through the minority and the"14. majority views of the Tribunal. We find that Shri K. Gopal Hegde who has dealt with the issue in extenso, has taken note of the ratio laid down by the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts as well as a subsequent decision of the Tribunal itself in CCE v. Punjab Bone Mills [1988 (38) E.L.T. 389 (Tribunal) (Appeal No. 615/85-C with E/Cros/64/1988-C)] for coming to a conclusion that the goods imported by the appellants are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 234/82. However, this view was the minority view and, therefore, the exemption claimed by the appellant was denied. The majority view, it appears, was influenced by the fact that a decision of the Tribunal in Aries Agro-Vet Industries (P) Ltd. v. CCE [19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
