Page 237 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] ZYMONUTRIENTS PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI 459

Enzymes - Imported inactive dried yeast - Classification under Chapter
23 of Central Excise Tariff - Material purchased and used for poultry feed sup-
plement - HELD : Heading 2102 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, covers yeasts (ac-
tive or inactive) and as per test reports of CRCL, impugned goods are inactive
yeast - Assessee’s argument that imported goods not fit for human consump-
tion, hence do not fall under Heading 2102 ibid unacceptable, as yeast declared
not fit for human consumption, not excluded from impugned Heading 2102
ibid - Entire Chapter 23 ibid, talks of preparations of a kind used in animal
feeding however impugned products imported not preparations of kind ani-
mal feeding - Item cannot be classified along with animal feed merely by vir-
tue of inclusive definition given in explanatory notes for Heading 2309 of Cen-
tral Excise Tariff - Also, when yeast having specific mention under Heading
2102 ibid, item cannot be classified under any other heading - Classification
arrived by department and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) to be con-
sistent with relevant chapter heading and notes and also general interpretative
rules for classification - Classification of impugned goods under Tariff Item
2102 20 00 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 correctly arrived at by Revenue. [paras 9,
10, 11, 12]
Appeals dismissed
CASES CITED
Collector v. India Packaging Products — 2002 (142) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.) — Referred ............................. [Para 2]
Collector v. Surendra Cotton Oil Mills and Fert. Co. — 2001 (127) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Referred ...... [Para 2]
Commissioner v. Lal Chand Bhimraj — 2007 (220) E.L.T. 189 (Tribunal) — Referred ..................... [Para 2]
Commissioner v. Sonam International — 2012 (275) E.L.T. 326 (All.) — Relied on........................ [Para 11]
H.M.T. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2009 (239) E.L.T. 239 (Kar.) — Referred ......................................... [Para 3]
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Union of India — 2011 (271) E.L.T. 175 (Ker.) — Referred ................................ [Para 3]
Kasturi Foods & Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector — 1995 (80) E.L.T. 169 (Tribunal) — Referred ...... [Para 4.1]
Kasturi Foods & Chemicals v. Collector — 1995 (77) E.L.T. 584 (Tribunal) — Referred .............. [Para 4.1]
Moorco (India) Ltd. v. Collector — 1994 (74) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) — Referred ......................................... [Para 4.1]
Sun Export Corporation v. Collector — 1997 (93) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) — Referred ................................ [Para 2]
Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. v. Collector— 2001 (138) E.L.T. 414 (Tribunal-LB)
— Distinguished .............................................................................................................. [Paras 2, 4.1, 11]
Woodstruck Furniture Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2011 (269) E.L.T. 327 (Ker.) — Referred ...... [Para 3]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri S. Loknath, Consultant, for the Appellant.
Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR), for the Respondent.
[Order per : P. Anjani Kumar, Member (T)]. - The appellants M/s. Zy-
monutrients Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Zeus Biotech Ltd. had imported “inactive dried
yeast-animal feed supplement” and classified the same under CTH 2309 90 20
claiming the same to be “preparations of a kind used in animal feeding”. How-
ever, the department reclassified the same under CTH 2102 20 00. The appellants
have paid the duty under protest and cleared under test bond. Test report con-
firmed the goods are either not fit for human consumption or to be “inactive
dried at yeast”. The department has subsequently finalized the Bills of Entry re-
jecting the classification claimed by the appellant. The appellants have appealed
against this orders before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) contending that
though provision assessment was made order under Section 17(5) of Customs
Act, 1962 was not issued and therefore all the appeal were filed in time. Commis-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  237