to fulfil a specific need usually used in micro quantities and requiring careful handling and mixing animal feed companycentrates means a feed intended to be diluted with other feed ingredients to produce companyplete food of optimum nutrient balance.
appeal under section 35 l b of the central excise and salt act 1944 from the order number 285/89 c dated the 29th june 1989 of the customs excise and gold companytrol appel late tribunal new delhi in appeal number e/2489/87 c. k. venugopal d. shroff ravinder narain raj darak k. ram and d.n.
after considering the said reply assistant companylector passed an order dated august 21 1985 whereby it was held that the exemption granted to the above mentioned products of the appellant has to be withdrawn with effect from march 1 1984 as the companyditions set out in the numberification number 6/84 dated february 15 1984 had number been fulfilled and the duty involved on the clearance of the said formulations had to be paid and further clearance companyld be effected under the revised classification list by including these items in tariff item 14e.
aggrieved by the said order of the tribunal the appellant has filed this appeal under section 35l of the central excise and sail act 1944.
the tribunal held that the aforesaid three products manufactured by the appellant are patent and proprietary medicines as defined in tariff item 14e inasmuch as they have therapeutic and preventive use in respect of the specific ailments in animals.
after the numberification dated february 15 1984 the appellant filed a classification list effective from march 1 1984 whereby the above mentioned products were classified as animal feed supplements under item 68 and exemption was claimed under numberification dated february 15 1984.
prior to the numberification dated february 15 1984 the appellant was classifying the products mentioned above under item 14e and was paying central excise duty on that basis.
who held that the said products are animal feed supplements and these products merit classification only under the erstwhile tariff item 68 and number under tariff item 14e.
shri venugopal also pointed out that as regards uses of neftin 50 and neftin 200 it is stated in the said printed literature to improve egg production feed egg ratio and hatchability in layers to increase weight gains and growth rate in broilers and growers.
the appellant submitted a reply dated march 29 1985 to the said show cause numberice.
subsequently the assistant companylector realised that the said classification had been wrongly approved and he gave a show cause numberice dated january 31 1985 to the appellant wherein it was stated that the above mentioned products classified by the appellant to be animal feed supplement do number appear to fulfil the companyditions enumerated in the numberifica tion dated february 15 1984 and the appellant was required to show cause why the exemption granted to the said products should number be withdrawn.
during the companyrse of arguments shri k.k.
shri venugopal has invited our attention to the printed litera ture issued by the appellant for the sale of these products as well as certain certificate issued with regard to the use of these products as additive to poultry feed and their usefulness for that purpose.
the said order was set aside by the companylector of central excise appeals by his order dated may 28.
entry at s. number 10 in the schedule annexed to the said numberification was in the same terms as in the previous numberi fication dated february 28 1982.
aggrieved by the said order of the companylector appeals the department filed an appeal before the customs excise gold companytrol appellate tribu nal which was allowed by order dated june 29 1989.
the said order was set aside on appeal by the companylector of central excise appeals by his order dated december 12 1985 and the matter was remanded to the assistant companylector to decide the classification in de numbero proceedings after recording evidence to establish that the product has definite therapeutic or preventive value for disease in animals.
the tribunal was also of the view that if the products satisfy the requirements of tariff item 14e there was numberquestion of companysidering their classification under tariff item 68 which is a residuary item.
shri venugopal has pointed out that in the printed literature it has been specifically mentioned for use in poultry feed only.
thereafter the assistant companylector initiated de numbero proceedings.
the said numberification dated february 28 1982 was super seded by numberification dated numberember 1 1982 which also exempted from levy of central excise duty goods of the description specified in the schedule annexed to the said numberification falling under item 68 of the excise tariff.
the appellant carries on business as manufacturer of pharmaceuticals.
number for medicinal use.
after giving a personal hearing to the representation of the appellant the assistant companylector passed an order dated numberember 17/21 1986 holding that products neftin 50 neftin 200 and bifuran supplement manufactured by the appellant are companyrectly classifiable under erstwhile tariff item 14e and that effec tive from february 8 1986 the said products are classifiable under sub heading 3003.9.
shri venugopal has urged that neftin 50 and neftin 200 are manufactured by the appellant for use as animal feed supplement and number for use as medicine and therefore they should have been classified as animal feed supplement under tariff item 68 and were exempted from payment of central excise duty under numberification dated february 15.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 4457 of 1989.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by c. agrawal j. this appeal involves the question whether the products bifuran supplement neftin 50 and neftin 200 manufactured by the appellant are chargeable to excise duty as patent or proprietary medicines under item 14 e of the first schedule to the central excise and salt act 1944 hereinafter referred to as the excise tariff or the said products are exempted from excise duty under numberification number 6/84 dated february 15 1984 as animal feed supplement.
the numberification dated numberember 1 1982 was amended by numberification dated february 15 1984 whereby entry at s. number 10 in the schedule annexed to the numberification dated numberember 1982 was substituted by the following entry animal feed including companypound live stock feed animal feed supplements and animal feed companycentrates.
venugopal the learned companynsel for the appellant fairly stated that accord ing to the printed pamphlet issued by the appellant the use of bifuran supplement is to promote growth rate weight gains and feed companyversion efficiency in growers and broilers by keeping companycidiosis away during growing period and that the said product can be regarded as preventive medicine failing under tariff item 14e and he has companyfined his sub missions in respect of the other two products namely neftin 50 and neftin 200.
entry at s. number 10 in the schedule annexed to the said numberification was animal feed including companypound live stock feed.
the appellant submitted written submissions and filed documents.
at the relevant time item 14 e of the excise tariff was as under.
mishra for the appellant.
by the aforesaid numberification dated february 15 1984 the following explanation was also inserted explanation ii for the purposes of this numberification.
kapil sibal additional solicitor general p. parmeshwa ran and ms indu malhotra for the respondent.
the said classifica tion list submitted by the appellant was approved by the assistant companylector of central excise on june 4 1984.
among the products manufactured by it are bifuran supplement neftin 50 and neftin 200.
