Page 242 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

464 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

the case cited above. Moreover, we find that note to Chapter 23 specifically says
that “Heading 2309 includes products of a kind used in animal feed, not else-
where specified or included, obtained by processing vegetable or animal materi-
als to such extent that they have lost the essential characteristics of the original
material, other than vegetable waste, vegetable residues and by-products of such
processing”. Therefore, it is clear that the Chapter 23 shall include products of a
kind used in animal feed. However, the emphasis that they are not elsewhere
included. As submitted by the Ld. AR and as held by the Commissioner (Ap-
peals) Heading 2102 20 00 specifically mentions yeast active or inactive. There-
fore, when yeast has a specific mention under Heading 2102, that cannot be clas-
sified under any other heading under Chapter 23 in view of the chapter note
mentioned above. Therefore, we find that the classification arrived by the de-
partment and upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is consistent with the
relevant chapter heading and notes and also general interpretative rules for clas-
sification wherein it is specified under Rule 3(a) of Interpretative Rules that the
heading which provides most specific description shall be preferred to heading
providing a more general description. We find that issue of import of Vitamin
“E” 40% to 50% and claimed to be animal feed came before the Tribunal for dis-
cussion and that Tribunal in the case of CC v. Sonam International - 2012 (275)
E.L.T. 326 (All.) has come to the conclusion that vitamins imported by the appel-
lants therein are to be classified under 2936 00 and not under 2302 as ‘animal
feed supplement’ as claimed by the appellants. We further find that in the above
case of Sonam International Tribunal has discussed and distinguished the case of
Tetragon Chemie (supra) and moreover, it is the later judgment on the issue and
directly on the subject of import of similar items. In view of the above, we up-
hold the classification of impugned goods under CTH 2102 20 00 as assessed by
the department and as upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
12. In view of the above, we find that to extent of classification of the
impugned goods is concerned; the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) does
not require to be interfered with. In the result, we uphold the impugned order in
so far as the classification of the impugned goods is concerned. We hold that
classification of impugned goods i.e. yeast is correctly arrived by the Revenue
under CTH 2102 20 00. Under such circumstances, the appellant’s submissions
on the issue of time-bar loose relevance in the instant case.
13. In the result the appeals are dismissed in terms of the above discus-
sion.
(Order pronounced in open Court on 26-11-2019)

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  242