2015(10)LCX0071

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

Versus

Pfizer Ltd.

Civil Appeal Nos. 5858-5859 of 2007, decided on 16-10-2015

Cases Quoted -

Pfizer Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2002(08)LCX0282 Eq 2005 (186) ELT A117 (S.C.) - Relied on [Para 2]
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector - 1999(02)LCX0050 Eq 2003 (152) ELT A092 (S.C.) - Referred [Para 3]
Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. v. Collector - 1998(09)LCX0051 Eq 2001 (138) ELT 0414 (Tribunal-LB)- Distinguished [Paras 1, 2, 3]

Advocated By -

S/Shri K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Advocate, Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Binu Tamta, Rajiv Singh and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mrs. Shiraz Contractor Patodia, Advocate, for the Respondent.

[Order]. -

The question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Virginiamycin imported under brand name STAFAC 1000 is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2941.90 and Central Excise Tariff Heading 2941.90 or under Customs Tariff Heading 2309.90 and Central Excise Tariff Heading 2302.00. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') by impugned decision dated 5-9-2006 has followed its judgment rendered by the Chennai Bench in the case of 'Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. CCE [1999 (030) RLT 366 = 1998(09)LCX0051 Eq 2001 (138) ELT 0414 (Tribunal-LB)]. We may-mention that the aforesaid judgment was upheld by this Court dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.
2. The contention of the appellant/Department in challenging the aforesaid findings of the CESTAT is that the said judgment in Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd. is not applicable in the instant case. On the other hand, it is pointed out by Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior coimsel appearing for the Department, that the CESTAT has totally ignored the fact that they have placed the decision of this Court classifying these products under sub-heading 2941.90 of the Central Excise Tariff that it is not premix animal feed under sub-heading 2302.00. It is pointed out that this view has been taken in the case of the same assessee in 'Pfizer Ltd. v. Commissioner' [2005 (186) ELT All7 (S.C)].

3. We find substance in the aforesaid submission of learned senior counsel. We may mention that insofar as the judgment in Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, which was upheld by this Court [1999(02)LCX0050 Eq 2003 (152) ELT A092 (S.C.)], it pertains to two competent classifications, i.e., 29/36 as Vitamins or 23.09/23.02 as preparation of a kind used in animal feed. In that case, the product was a premix, the additional items in the product were calcium carbonate, benzene, dextrose, lactose, yeast, soya flour etc. On the other hand, in the present case, imported goods Virginiamycin is a well defined chemical of 100% purity with anti-bacterial properties included specifically under Chapter 29 by virtue of Chapter Note 1(a). The judgment of Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd. has, therefore, no application to the facts of the present case.


4. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the order of CESTAT is set aside.

Equivalent 2015 (326) ELT 0431 (S.C.)