Accordingly.
The Corporation paid the duty.
therefore, the exemption numberification dated 1.11.82 was of numberavail to the companyporation.
234/82 Central Excises, dated the 1st November, 1982, namely In the said numberification a in the schedule, for serial No.
However, the appellate authority at Calcutta rejected the claim of the appellant and dismissed the appeal accepting the view of Assistant Collector Refunds .
These companysignments were assessed to duty under the heading 2901/45 17 of the Customs Tariff ACT, 1975 read with Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff Act.
The companycerned Assistant Collector Refunds rejected the claim of the appellant holding that the goods imported were assessable to duty under the heading 29.01/45 17 of the then prevailing First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act read with Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and.
Aggrieved by the companymon order Of the Tribunal of these appeals are preferred.
Aggrieved by The rejection of refund applications the appellant preferred separate appeals one set before Collector of Customs Appeals , Bombay, and another set before Collector of Customs Appeals , Calcutta.
In other words, the earned Judge held that animal feed supplements would fall under the purview of Exemption Notification No.55/75 C.E. similar to the one under companysideration.
The appellate authority at Bombay accepted the claim of the appellant and granted the relief holding the goods imported were in the nature of Animal Feed Additives, and as such fall under the heading 23 01.07.
They are as follows 23.01/07 Residues and waste or food industries for example, inedible meat or fish flour or meals, milling residues, waste from sugar, brewing and distilling and starch industries oil cake and other residues from oil extraction except dregs products of vegetable origin of a kind used for animal food, number elsewhere specified or included sweetened forage and other prepared animal fodder.
The minority view was That the appellant was entitled to the benefit of exemption claimed by the appellant while the majority held otherwise.
This Notification was subsequently amended by bringing into new clause 10 , which reads as follows In exercise of the powers companyferred by sub rule I of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 the central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue No.
Hence, these appeals are disposed of by this companymon Judgment.
and entry shall be substituted, namely Animal feed including companypound live stock feed, animal feed supplements and animal feed companycentrates.
Later on it claimed refund of the duty paid as companyntervailing duty companytending inter alia that the goods imported were classifiable under item 2301/07 as Animal Feed and as per Notification 234/82 CE dated 1.11.82, those goods were exempted from levy of duty.
Against the order of the appellate authority at Calcutta the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Revenue preferred appeals before the Tribunal against the orders of the appellate authority at Bombay.
New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal has disposed of the appeals by a companymon order.
For that reason.
Mr. Ramesh Singh learned companynsel appearing for the appellant companyporation, supporting the minority view of the Tribunal invited our attention to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Glindia Ltd. Vs.
the Customs.
Applications were filed for refund of the companyntervailing duty additional duty Paid on such imports.
Brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are the following The appellant Corporation imported six companysignments of goods Pre mix of vitamin Ad 3 Mix feed grade, at Bombay and seven companysignments of similar goods at Calcutta.
Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal.
Union of India 1988 36 E.L.T. 479 wherein an identical question arose for companysideration and the learned Single Judge took a view favourable to the assessee.
Venkataswami, J. The appellant as well as the question of law is companymon in all these appeals.
The learned Additional solicitor General, Mr. K.N. Bhat on the other hand supporting the majority view of the Tribunal.
10 and the entry relating thereto, the following serial No.
