Page 125 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : VIPPY INDUSTRIES LTD. 451
vegetable or animal materials to such an extent that they have lost
the essential characteristic of the original material, other than vege-
table waste, vegetable residues and by-products of the such pro-
cessing. Further the tariff heading 2309 90 90 is detailed as under :

23.09 Preparations of a kind used in animal feeding.
2309.10 Dog or cat food, put up for retail sale
2309.90 Others
2309 90 10 Compounded animal feed
2309 90 20 Concentrates for compound animal feed
Feed for fish (prawn etc.)
2309 90 31 Prawn and shrimps feed
2309 90 32 Fish meal in powdered form
2309 90 39 Others
2309 90 90 Others

Further, the notification 2/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 and corre-
sponding notification issued under MPGST Act has exempted intra-state
supplies of goods, the description of which is specified in column (3) of the
Schedule appended to the said notification, falling under the tariff item,
sub-heading, heading or Chapter, as the case may be, as specified in the
corresponding entry :

Sl. Chapter heading/ Description of goods
No. sub-heading/
tariff item
102. 2302, 2304, 2305, Aquatic feed including shrimp feed and prawn
2306, 2308, 2309 feed, poultry feed & cattle feed, including grass,
hay & straw, supplement & husk of pulses, con-
centrates & additives, wheat bran & de-oiled cake

7.6 From above it is derived that the Chapter heading 2309 90 90 is exclu-
sively meant for animal feed. It is noted that the applicant has not provided
any evidence to prove that the said product “Bio Processed Meal” is meant
for animal feed. We find that the applicant is renowned manufacturer of
soya based products, both for general public, for animal feed as well as for
industrial use. In such a situation, a critical analysis is required to establish
that the said product is meant only for animal feed.
We further noticed that in their advance ruling application, they have men-
tioned at point 15(f) that :
“The protein content of the feed grade is less than 50% and not fit for hu-
man consumption”
We further noticed that vide letter dated 18-11-19 they have submitted fresh
plea that above clause in their advance ruling application should be read as
under :
“The Protein content is up to 52%”
From above, it is clear that they have also removed the line “and not fit for
human consumption”
7.7 From the above discussion, it is clear to us that there are not evidences
in support of the applicant’s claim that the said product falls under chapter
heading 2309 90 90. The applicants withdrawn of the comment that “and
not fit for human consumption”, further substantiates our contention.
GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  125