- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Collector Of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. .
Case Summary: CA No. 5833 of 1999
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute concerns the correct Central Excise classification of products manufactured by the respondents that consist of one or more vitamins mixed with dilutants and are marketed as animal feed supplements. The Collector of Central Excise classified these products under Tariff Entry 2936.00 (vitamins) attracting 15 % duty, reasoning that the products were not directly consumed by animals but merely added in small quantities to regular feed. The respondents claimed classification under Entry 2302.00, which covers “preparations of a kind used in animal feeding” and carries a nil rate of duty. On appeal, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) ruled in favour of the respondents, holding that animal feed supplements fall under Entry 2302.00. The revenue authorities filed the present civil appeal challenging that decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether vitamin-based animal feed supplements that are added in small quantities to livestock feed are classifiable under Tariff Entry 2302.00 (“preparations of a kind used in animal feeding”) carrying nil duty, or under Tariff Entry 2936.00 (“vitamins”) attracting 15 % duty.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Revenue)
- The products do not qualify as “animal feed” because they are not directly consumed by animals; they merely enhance performance when mixed with regular feed.
- As vitamin preparations, the goods should be classified under Entry 2936.00, which specifically covers vitamins and prescribes a 15 % rate of duty.
Respondents (Assessees)
- The goods are “preparations of a kind used in animal feeding” because they are designed for and used in animal feeding, even if only in small quantities, and therefore fall within Entry 2302.00 that carries no duty.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the Collector himself had referred to the goods as “animal feed supplements,” implicitly acknowledging their use in animal feeding. Affirming the Tribunal’s interpretation, the Court held that Entry 2302.00 is broad and inclusive, covering supplements used in the feeding process. Because the products are admittedly employed in animal feeding, they squarely fall under Entry 2302.00. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the revenue’s appeal.
Holding and Implications
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal’s decision affirmed.
All connected appeals were likewise dismissed with no order as to costs. The ruling confirms that animal feed supplements used in animal feeding are classifiable under Entry 2302.00 and therefore attract a nil rate of excise duty. No wider doctrinal implications were discussed beyond this classification clarification.
Order
CA No. 5833 of 1999
1. The short question that arises for consideration in the present case relates to the products of the respondents which they represent as being animal feed supplements. It is not in dispute that the products of the respondents consist of one or more vitamins mixed together with dilutants and these products are used in a small quantity for improving animals' performance. The two competing entries are Entries 2302.00 and 2936.00
Entry 2302.00 reads as follows:
“2302.00 Preparation of a kind used in animal feeding, including dog and cat food”
The rate of duty for this is nil.
Entry 2936.00 reads as follows:
The rate of duty prescribed is 15% for the vitamins.
2. The Collector of Central Excise had come to the conclusion that the product did not fall under Entry 2302.00 because the product had to be added in a small quantity to the main feed to get desired performance of the livestock or to enhance the performance of the livestock beyond the normal levels. He further observed that he would have accepted the plea of the assessees that the products were animal feed had the product manufactured by them been directly used as such for animal feeding. The claim of the respondents herein was rejected because according to the Collector the products merely were to enhance the performance of livestock by addition of these supplements to the animal feed. From this it is evident that the Collector regarded the products in question as animal feed supplements.
3. On further appeal to the Tribunal, it came to the conclusion that animal feed supplements were rightly included in Tariff Item 2302.00, being preparation of a kind used in animal feeding including dog and cat food. We agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal that even food supplements like the products of the respondents which are used in animal feeding would fall under Heading 2302.00 and, therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. While affirming the decision of the Tribunal, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Remaining appeals
4. For the reasons stated in the judgment above, all other appeals are also dismissed with no order as to costs.
Alert