M/S SUN EXPORT CORPORATION BOMBAY versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 434 · Decided: 07-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS SUN EXPORT CORPORATION BOMBAY 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY AND ANR. 
JULY 7, 1997 
B 
[S.C. SEN, K. VENKATASWAMI AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
Customs Tariff Act, 1975-Headbtg 29:01145( 17) r/w Item 68 of Central 
Excise Tariff Act-Notification 234182-CE dated 1-11-82-Applicabilitf 
Animal feed supplement-Wliether would fall under Exemption Notification 
C dated 1-11-82--Held, Yes. 
Intepretatiun of Statutes-Taxation matters-Rule of intepretation 
when two views possible-Held, view favourable to assessee to be prefe"ed. 
Precedents-Law of-Dismissal of matter at admission stag~Whether 
D can be relied upon as a binding precedent-Held, No. 
The appellant Corporation imported consignments of Pre- mix of 
Vitamin Ad-3 Mix (feed grade) which were assessed to duty under the 
heading29:01/45(17) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 r/w Item 68 of Central 
E Excise Tariff Act. The Corporation's claim that the goods imported were 
classifiable under Item 23:01/07 as 'Animal feed' and as per Notification 
234/82-CE dated 1-11-82, those goods were exempted from levy of duty was 
rejected. In appeal, the Tribunal held that the goods imported fell under 
heading 29:01/45 (17) and that the appellant Corporation was not entitled 
to the benefit of the Exemption Notification as the animal feed supple-
F ments by themselves were not 'animal feed' for qualifying exemption under 
the notification. These appeals were filed against the order of the Tribunal. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The goods imported were pre-mix of vitamin AD- 3 (feed 
G grade) not for medicinal use. It was an animal feed supplement, therefore 
an animal feed. The exemption notification has been amended by another 
notification No. 6of1984 as a result of which the item 'animal feed' is now 
substituted by 'animal feed, animal feed supplements and animal feed · 
concentrates'. This amendment is clarificatory in nature and products 
H which supplement animal feed are also covered by the generic term 'animal 
434 
-
•• 
--
SUN EXPO!<T CORPN. v. COLI.ECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY [K. VENKATASWAM' J.) 
435 
feed'. The goods imported by the appellants were eligible for exemption A 
under Notification No. 234/82. The appellants were held entitled to the 
refund, [439-C; H; 441-D] 
1.2. Though the contrary view taken by the Tribunal had been 
challenged in this Court which was rejected in limine at the admission 
stage. Dismissal at the admission stage cannot be relied upon as a binding B 
precedent. [ 441-A] 
2. In matters of taxation, even when there are two views possible, that 
one favourable to the assessee has to be preferred. [441-B] 
Mafatlal lndustlies Ltd. v. Union of Irdia, (1997) 89 ELT 247 SC, C 
relied on. 
Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Punjab Bone Mills, (Appeal 
No. 615/85-C with E/Cross/64/1988-C) and M/s. Aries Agro-Pet Industries 
Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, (1984) 16 ELT 467, referred D 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4897-
4991 of 1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.5.89 of the Customs, Excise E 
and Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in 0. Nos. 173- 177/89 
in Appeal Nos. C/465 to 468/84 and 1474 of 1986-C. 
Ramesh Singh, Bina Gupta, Rakhi Ray and T. Sudha for the Appel-
lant. 
K.N. Bhat, Additional Solicitor General, K.K. Patil and V.K. Verma 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
K. VENKATASWAMI, J. The appellant as well as the question of G 
law is common in all these appeals. For that reason, the Customs, Excise 
.. and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. New Delhi, (hereinafter referred 
.to as the 'Tribunal') has disposed of the appeals by a common order. 
Hence, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 
Brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are the following : 
H 
436 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant-Corporation imported six consignments of goods (Pre-
mix of vitamin Ad-3 Mix (feed grade) at Bombay and seven consignments 
of similar goods at Calcutta. These consignments were assessed to duty 
under the heading 29:01/45(17) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with 
Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff Act. The Corporation paid the duty. Later 
B on it claimed refund of the duty paid as countervailing duty contending 
inter alia that the goods imported were classifiable under item 23:01/07 as 
'Animal Feed' a~d .as per Notification 234/82-CE dated 1.11.82, those 
goods were ex

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.