COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, GUNTUR, ETC. ETC. versus M/S SURENDRA COTTON OIL MILLS AND FERT. CO. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 701 · Decided: 15-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, 
A 
GUNTUR, ETC. ETC. 
v. 
MIS SURENDRA COTTON OIL MILLS AND FERT. CO. ETC. ETC. 
DECEMBER 15, 2000 
B 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Customs Tariff Act, 1975-Tariff Heading No. 21-Animalfeed-Export 
duty on de-oiled rice bran extraction, niger seed extraction of topicoa chips C 
and sesame seed extractions-Ingredients of animal feed-Held, ingredients 
of animal feed are not animal feed by themselves and not liable to export duty 
under the Heading. 
Tariff Heading No. 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff 
Act, 1975 deals with 'animal feed' for levy of export duty. Respondents export D 
de-oiled rice bran extniction, niger seed extraction of topioca chips and sesame 
seed extractions. Revenue classified the products under Tariff Heading No. 
21 treating them as 'animal' feed' on the ground that they are ingredients or 
supplements to the animal feed. On appeal, Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) 
Appellate Tribunal held that the products are only ingredients of animal feed 
and not 'animal feed' by themselves and therefore are not liable to export duty E 
under the Heading. 
In appeal to this Court, Revenue contended that the products, being 
ingredients or supplements to the animal feed, would fall within the scope of 
the Heading and further contended that either the Heading or the entire Tariff 
Act does not differentiate the ingredients of animal feed with animal feed and F 
that the products, being a part of the whole, are liable to export duty. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In IS 9703-1980 the Indian Standard Institution recognises 
a distinction between the feeding stuffs (ingredients) and animal feed. The G 
understanding of the Indian standard Institution suggest that ingredients by 
themselves cannot be termed to be animal feed-it may be a component or 
ingredient or a basic stuff, but it cannot be termed to be animal feed. A very 
common example on this score remains that of oil cakes-whereas oil cakes 
are used as protein supplement in livestock food stuffs and mixed with the 
H 
701 
702 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A animal feed, oil cakes by themselves cannot be termed to be an animal feed, 
since animal feed not only consists of its ingredients but the total bulk in 
form, shape and size which would feed an animal. Animal feed thus cannot be 
an ingredients or a part of the feed but in its entirety and as a whole taken 
together with even vitamins and calcium mix. The whole substance thus is 
B the mix and not any specific item as such. The oil cakes and rice bran exported 
by the respondents cannot be termed to be animal feed warranting invocation 
of Heading No. 21 of the export tariff under the Customs Act. 
(703-F, G, II; 705-H) 
Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay & 
C Am:, (1997) 6 SCC 564, distinguished. 
Glaxo Laboratoreis (India) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1979) 43 STC 386 
Gujarat, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3732-3760, 
D 3762-3774of1989. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.1988 passed by the Customs, 
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Order No. 514/88-
D ofCD/2211/86-D.). 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 1685-1691of1997. 
Mukul Rohtagi, Addi, Solicitor General, K.K. Dhawan, B.K. Prasad, 
Harishankar, Pradeep Mishra, P. Parmeshwaran, V. Balachandran, Subramanium 
Prasad, Rakesh K. Sharma, Ms. Janaki Ramachandran and Rajesh Prasad 
F Singh for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BANERJEE, J. This batch of appeals against the order of Customs, 
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) pertain to classification 
G of de-oiled rice bran extraction, niger seed extraction of topioca chips and 
sesame seed extractions as animal feed falling under Tariff Heading No.21 of 
the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The core question thus 
relates to the factum of export duty being leviable thereon during the relevant 
period CEGAT has answered that since these products are only ingredients 
of animal feed and not 'animal feed' by themselves, the same would not come 
H within the ambit of the term 'animal feed' as detailed in the statute. 
COLLECTOR OF C C.E ' SURENDRA COTTON OIL MILLS AND FERT CO ETC. ETC. [BANERJEE, J J 703 
Shri Mukul Rohtagi, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing A 
for the appellant, very strongly contended that differentiation, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.