LexESKAYEF LIMITED versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G ESKA YEF LIMITED v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE SEPTEMBER 14, 1990 [N.M. KASLIWAL AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: First Schedule Item 14E- Bifuran Supplement, Neftin-50 and Neftin-200--Whether chargeable to excise duty as patent or proprietary medicines. Item 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 at the relevant time dealt with patent or proprietary medicines not containing alcohol, opium, Indian hemp or other narcotic drugs or narcotics. Explanation I thereto defined 'patent or proprietary medicines' to mean any drug or medicinal preparation, in whatever form, for use in the internal or external treatment of, or for the preven- tion of ailments In human beings or animals. Item 68 dealt with all other goods, not elsewhere specified but excluding alcohol, opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs and narcotics. The Central Government by a notification dated February 28, 1982 exempted certain goods falling under Item 68 from the levy of central excise duty. Entry at S. No. IO in the schedule annexed thereto read "animal feed Including compound livestock feed". The said notifi- cation was superseded by notification dated November I, 1982 which also provided the same exemption. This notification was again amended by notification dated February 15, 1984. Entry at S. No. IO in the schedule thereto read "animal feed including compound livestock feed, animal feed supplement and animal feed concentrates". A question arose as to whether Bifuran Supplement, Neftin-50 and Neftin-200 manufactured by the appellant were chargeable to excise duty as patent or proprietary medicines under Item 14-E or could be classified as "animal feed supplement" under Item 68 and exempted from payment of excise duty. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held that the said formulations were classifiable under Tariff Item 14-E. His order was, however, set aside by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who held that the said products were animal feed supple- ments which merited classification only under the erstwhile Tariff Item 68 and not under Tariff Item 14-E. On appeal by the Department, the H Tribunal held that the aforesaid three products manufactured by the 442 ESKA YEF v. C.C.E. 443 appellant were patent and proprietary medicines as defined in Tariff Item 14-E inasmuch as they have therapeutic and preventive use in respect of the specific ailments in animals, that if the products satisfied the requirements of Tariff Item 14-E there was no question of consider- ing their classification under Tariff Item 68 which was a residuary item. In this appeal under s. 35-L of the Act it was stated on behalf of the appellant that since the use of Bifuran Supplement was to promote growth rate, weight-gains and feed conversion efficiency in growers and broilers by keeping coccidiosis away during growing period, it could be regarded as a preventive medicine falling under Tariff Item 14-E. How- ever, in respect of Neftin-50 and Neftin-200 it was urged that these were manufactured for use as animal feed supplement and not for use as medicines and, therefore, they should haw been classified as animal feed supplement under Tariff Item 68 and exempted from payment of excise duty under notification dat.ed February 15, 1984. It was further contended that the appellant had been subjected to arbitrary and hostile discrimination as similar products of other manufacturers were being exempted from payment of excise duty under the said notifica- tion. For the respondent it was contended that Neftin-50 contains Furazolidone 5% w/w and Neftin-200 contains Furazolidone 20% w/w, that Furazolidone is used as an aid in the prevention of coccidiosis as well as for treatment of cocddiosis, that Furazolidone is a patent drug and in England it is sold to the public on the prescription of a registered practitioner only that the finding that these two products were patent and proprietary medicines falling under Tariff Item 14-E was essen- tially a finding of fact based on the materials placed before the excise authorities and the said finding was not normally open to challenge in appeal, that the other manufacturers whose products were exempted were located at different places and were assessable to excise duty by different authorities, and that the relevant notifications have been wrongly applied to those manufacturers by the concern
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.