Supreme Suguna Food Co. Ltd. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COIMBATORE>2014(09)LCX0148

2014(09)LCX0148

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

S/Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) and R. Periasami, Member (T)

Supreme Suguna Food Co. Ltd.

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COIMBATORE

Final Order Nos. 40637-40639/2014, dated 29-9-2014 in Appeal Nos. E/162-164/2005

Cases Quoted -

Collector v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. - 1995(03)LCX0070 Eq 1995 (077) ELT 0023 (S.C.) - Distinguished [Paras 3,10]
Commissioner v. Laljee Godhoo and Co. - 2007(08)LCX0037 Eq 2007 (216) ELT 0514 (S.C.)
- Distinguished [Paras 3,10]
Commissioner v. Piramal Healthcare Ltd. - 2004(08)LCX0248 Eq 2004 (178) ELT 0487 (Tribunal) - Referred [Para 4]
Commissioner v. Sonam International - 2010(10)LCX0014 Eq 2012 (275) ELT 0326 (All.) - Referred [Para 4]
Indo Canadian Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2012(10)LCX0085 Eq 2013 (289) ELT 0335 (Tribunal)
- Distinguished [Paras 3,10]
Jubilant Organosys Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2004(02)LCX0009 Eq 2004 (168) ELT 0375 (Tribunal)
- Distinguished [Paras 3,10]
Laljee Godhoo and Co. v. Commissioner - 2001(05)LCX0049 Eq 2001 (132) ELT 0287 (Tribunal)
- Distinguished [Paras 3,10]
Plasmac Machine Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector - 1990(11)LCX0033 Eq 1991 (051) ELT 0161 (S.C.)
- Relied on [Paras 12,13]
Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. v. Collector - 1998(09)LCX0051 Eq 2001 (138) ELT 0414 (Tribunal-LB)
- Relied on [Paras 3, 4, 9]

Departmental Clarification Quoted-

C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 188/22/96-CX, dated 26-3-1996 [Para 3]

Advocated By -

Shri R. Parthasarathy, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri P. Arul, Supdt. (AR),for the Respondent.

[Order per : R. Periasami, Member (T)]. -

These appeals filed by the appellants arising out of common Order-in-Appeal No. 336-338/2004, dated 27-12-2004 and, therefore, all are taken up together for disposal.

2. The brief facts of the case are, as under :-

(i) The appellants are registered 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), engaged in manufacturing and exporting of Processed Frozen Whole Chicken Meat classifiable under Heading No. 02.01 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA).

(ii) During the process of manufacture of Frozen Whole Chicken Meat, various waste materials arise like intestine, feathers, heads, legs, blood and other offals.

(iii) The appellants are processing waste materials, such as, cooked in high temperature, mashed, dried and powdered. Such processed materials are known as "High Protein Poultry Mash (HPPM).

(iv) The appellants cleared HPPM, classifying under heading No. 23.01 of the CETA, without payment of duty to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), claiming the exemption under Notification No. 23/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003 (SI. No. 21).

(v) Three show cause notices were issued proposing to classify HPPM under Heading No. 23.02 of CETA, similar to heading 2309.90 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (CTA). It has also proposed to demand duty along with interest and penalty for the period from February, 2003 to December, 2003.

(vi) The adjudicating authority confirmed the classification under Heading No. 2302.00 of CETA corresponding to heading No. 2309.90 of CTA. He has also confirmed the demand of duty along with interest.

(vii) By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order in so far as to re-quantify the demand, after taking into account of the overlapping of the transaction for the month of September, 2003 and cum-duty benefit was extended.

(viii)The appellants filed these appeals to the extent of challenging the classification of HPPM under Heading No. 2302.00 of CETA and 2309.90 of CTA.

3. The Id. Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that "High Protein Poultry Mash" (HPPM) is a waste product arising during the course of process of manufacture of "Processed Frozen Whole Chicken Meat". Thus, it is a residue and waste from the food industry (i.e. preparation of Processed Frozen Chicken Meat) and rightly classifiable under 2301.00 of CETA and not under 23.02 of CETA as "preparation of a kind used in animal feeding". Heading 23.01 of CETA corresponds to Ch. 23.01 to 23.08 of CTA and heading No. 23.02 of CETA corresponds to heading No. 23.09 of CTA. He further submits that as per the Environment Protection Act and the Manual of Solid Waste Management, it is mandatory to process the waste materials consisting of non-edible offals and animal tissue and organs etc., and to be disposed of by rendering. The process carried out by them for processing of poultry waste material is similar to the description provided under Chapter 23 of Explanatory Notes to HSN. Merely by carrying out, the process by steam heating, mashing, drying and making powder, do not disentitle to Heading No. 2301 of CETA. As per the Explanatory note of 23.09 of HSN, which specifically covers prepared animal feeding stuffs consisting of mixture of several nutrients. He also referred to the Explanatory notes "II-Other preparations" of HSN heading 2309 and stated that the each and every preparation contemplated under Heading 2309 of HSN of notes should have addition of several nutrients. They have not added any nutrients, vitamins etc., and the product still remains as waste. He relied upon the following various case laws and Board's Circular No. 188/22/96-CX, dated 26-3-1996.

1. Laljee Godhoo & CO. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2001(05)LCX0049 Eq 2001 (132) ELT 0287 (Tri.-Mumbai)
2. CCE, Mumbai v. Laljee Godhoo & Co. - 2007(08)LCX0037 Eq 2007 (216) ELT 0514 (S.C.)
3. Jubilant Organosys Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - 2004(02)LCX0009 Eq 2004 (168) ELT 0375 (Tri.-Del.)
4. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. v. Collector of CE. - 1998(09)LCX0051 Eq 2001 (138) ELT 0414 (Tri.-LB)
5. Indo Canadian Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Rohtak - 2012(10)LCX0085 Eq 2013 (289) ELT 0335 (Tri.-Del.)
6. Collector of CE., Shillong v. Wood Craft Products - 1995(03)LCX0070 Eq 1995 (077) ELT 0023 (S.C.)

The Id. Advocate submits that since their product 'HPPM' does not contain any added material, it is not a preparation of animal feeding and it is rightly classifiable under heading No. 2301 of CETA and eligible of NIL rate of duty under Notification No. 23/2003 (S. No. 21) as Waste.

4. On the other hand, the Id. AR on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of lower authorities. He submits that conversion of poultry wastes into HPPM would amount to manufacture and during the process, the waste products lose their original identity and a new distinct product i.e., HPPM emerges, which is known as "Poultry feed supplement". The appellant also mentioned in their invoices as HPPM and cleared to DTA. As per Note of Chapter 23 of CETA, the Heading 23.02, covers not only preparation but also products obtained by processing of vegetable or animal materials to such an extent that they have lost the essential character. He submits that heading 23.09 of CETA contains variety of animal feed supplements under various heads, which does not contain any vitamins and other nutrients. What is relevant for deciding classification is that the (1) process involved, (2) relevant chapter note, (3) the description provided under the specific sub-heading and (4) how the goods are commercially described, should be taken in to consideration. The appellants themselves cleared HPPM by describing as poultry feeder supplement. Therefore, it is rightly classifiable under 23.02 of CETA and 23.09 of CTA. HSN notes to Heading 23.01 covers "Flours and meals, unfit for human consumption, obtained by processing either the whole animal (including poultry, marine mammals, fish or crustaceans, molasses or other aquatic invertebrates) or animal products (such as meat or meat offal) other than bones, horns, shells, etc. But, the product manufactured by the appellants contain poultry wastes like intestine, feathers, heads, legs, blood and other offals. Therefore, he submits that HPPM is not exclusively obtained from meat and meat offals and hence they are not covered under 2301 of HSN. He relied upon various case laws as under :-

1. Sonam International - 2010(10)LCX0014 Eq 2012 (275) ELT 0326 (All.)
2. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. v. Collector of C.E. - 1998(09)LCX0051 Eq 2001 (138) ELT 0414 (Tri.-LB)
3. CC, Mumbai v. Piramal Healthcare Ltd. - 2004(08)LCX0248 Eq 2004 (178) ELT 0487 (Tri.-Mum.)

5. We have carefully gone through the various submissions made by both the sides and also examined the records and written submission filed by them. The issue relates to classification of High Protein Poultry Mash (HPPM) as a waste from food industry falling under Heading No. 2301 of CETA as claimed by the appellants or under Heading No. 2302 of CETA and Heading 2309 of CTA as a preparation of a kind used in animal feeding, as classified by the Revenue. The appellants are not contesting on the valuation issue as raised in the impugned order.

5.1 In order to appreciate the facts of the case, it is relevant to see the process involved in the manufacture of HPPM, as explained by the appellants before the adjudicating authority, vide their letter dated 16-6-2004 and 5-11-2004, which is recorded in the said Adjudication Order, reproduced as under :-

"14. While processing the poultry meat, we are getting many waste mate-rials like poultry intestine, feathers, heads, legs, blood and other offals. These waste materials cannot be disposed off anywhere due to pollution hazards. Hence, we are letting these offals into a special process in a plant called rendering plant in order to cook these offals (waste materials) at a high temperature. As a result of this, we are getting a saleable material called "High Protein Poultry Mash" HPPM.
15. They have also furnished a letter dated 16-6-2004 explaining the pro-cess of manufacture of HPPM as follows: While processing the poultry meat, we get wastes like 1. Poultry intestine, 2. feathers, 3. slaughtered heads, 4. slaughtered legs, 5. waste blood etc., All these hazardous waste materials like intestine, feathers, heads, legs from processing hall are take to offal's sump tank through underground drainages. From offal's sump tank it is pumped up to Bow screen. The collection from the bow screen is segregated as effluent water and offal's. Effluent water will be sent to ET plant, offal's will be collected in feather holding bin, from there it is taken through screw conveyer belt to cooker.

16. Waste blood from the processing hall will be directly received in the cooker. By cooking the offal's and waste blood at high temperature, say 150 degrees they get this mash. All these process take place in a particular plant called "Rendering"."

5.2 As seen from the above, there is no dispute on the fact that the poultry waste materials are subject to various processes and the resultant product is described by the appellant as HPPM, which is in powder form. The appellants have cleared HPPM to DTA units by describing the product in their invoices as ''Poultry feed supplement".

5.3 The Id. Advocate for the appellants mainly relied on the HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 2301 and 2309. He argued that the processes are covered under the HSN explanatory notes as a waste. The relevant portion of the Tariff description of CETA, CTA and HSN and exemption notification are reproduced below :-

(00a) Chapter 23 of CETA, 1985
RESIDUES AND WASTES FROM THE FOOD INDUSTRIES PREPARED ANIMAL FODDER

Heading No. 23.02 includes products of a kind used in animal feeding elsewhere specified or included, obtained by processing vegetable or animal materials to such an extent that they have lost the essential characteristic of the original material, other than vegetable waste, vegetable residues and by product of such processing.

Heading No. Sub-heading No. Description of goods
23.01 2301.00 Residues and waste from food industries, including bagasse, other waste of sugar manufacture and oil cakes
23.02 2302.00 Preparations of a kind used in animal feeding, including dog and cat food
Chapter 23 of CTA, 1975 as
under:-Notes:
Heading 2309 includes products of a kind used in animal feeding, not
elsewhere specified or included, obtained by processing vegetables or
animal materials to such an extent that they have lost the essential
characteristics of the original material, other than vegetable waste,
vegetable residues and by-products of such processing,
2309 Preparations of a kind used in animal feeding 2309 10 00 Dog or cat food, put up for retail sale 2309 00 90 Other
2309 9010 Compounded animal feed 2309 90 20 Concentrates for compound animal feed Feeds for fish (prawn etc.)

2309 90 31 Prawn and shrimps feed 2309 90 32 Fish meal in powdered form 2309 90 39 Other 2309 90 90 Other

(c) Chapter 23 of HSN :-

23.09 Preparations of a kind used in animal feeding
2309.10 Dog or cat food, put up for retail sale
2309.90 Other
This heading covers sweetened forage and prepared animal feeding stuffs consisting of a mixture of several nutrients designed :
(1) to provide the animal with a rational and balanced daily diet (complete feed);
(2) to achieve a suitable daily diet by supplementing the basic farm produced feed with organic or inorganic substances (supplementary feed); or

(3) for use in making complete or supplementary feeds.

(d) SI. No. 21 of the Table appended to Notification No. 23/2003-CE.,
dated 31-3-2003 as under :-

21 Any chapter Waste from food industries in excess
of "Nil" 10

Condition 10 If the goods are manufactured wholly from indigenous raw materials.

5.4 The Id. Advocate relied on HSN Explanatory Notes of Heading 2301, which is reproduced as under :-

"2301 : Flours and meals, unfit for human consumption, obtained by processing either the whole animal (including poultry, marine mammals, fish or crustaceans, molasses or other aquatic invertebrates) or animal products (such as meat or meat offal) other than bones, horns, shells, etc. These products (obtained mainly from slaughter houses, floating factories which process fishery products, canning or packing industries etc.) are usually steam-heated and pressed or treated with a solvent to remove oil and fat. The resultant product is then dried and sterilized by prolonged heating and finally ground. The heading also covers the above products in the form of pellets (see the General Explanatory Note to this Chapter)

The flours, meals and pellets of this heading are used mainly in animal feeding, but may also be used for other purposes (e.g. as fertilizers)."

6. We find that Chapter 23 covers the various residues and wastes from food industries also includes prepared animal fodder, certain products of animal origin. The main use of most of these products is used as animal feeding either alone or mixed with other materials, although some of them are fit for human consumption. The head Notes of Chapter 23 of CETA, CTA and HSN are similarly worded. The scope of Chapter 23 as stated in HSN is that it covers various residues and wastes derived from vegetable materials used by food-preparing industries, and certain products of animal origin. The main use of most of these products is as animal feeding stuffs, either alone or mixed other, Chapter 23 of CETA is comprising of only two headings. Heading No. 23.01 covers the residues and wastes arises during the process of manufacture of final product from food industry. The clearance of residues and wastes above would be Nil rate of duty under Heading No. 23.01. The other Heading No. 23.02 covers preparation of a kind used in animal feeding. There is no dispute that heading 23.02 of CETA corresponds to Heading No. 23.09 of CTA. Notes of Chapter 23 provides that heading 23.02 of CETA, 23.09 of CTA and HSN would include products of a kind used in animal feeding obtained by processing animal material to such an extent that they have lost the essential characteristics of the original material.

6.1 In the present case, we find that various waste materials such as, intestine, feathers, heads, legs, blood and other offals etc., arise during the process of manufacture of Processed Chicken Meat. The appellant did not clear the said waste materials as such from their premises. The said waste materials were processed by the appellant as mentioned above. On perusal of processing of waste material as stated above, we find that various waste materials such as intestine, feathers, heads, legs etc. lost the essential characteristics of the original material and a new product was emerged in powder form, used in animal feeding and known as HPPM in the market. So, we do not have any hesitation to hold that as per Chapter note 23 of CETA, the product HPPM as manufactured by the appellant would come under Heading No. 23.02 of CETA.

7. Chapter No. 23 of CETA, CTA and HSN is inclusive definition and product to be covered under Heading 2309 of HSN is Heading 23.02 of CETA should confirm to be used in 3 criteria (i) the product is generally used in animal feeding (ii) these goods should not fall under any other chapters (hi) the product should have been obtained by processing of vegetable of animal material, and (iv) the said resultant product has lost the essential character of the original material. In the present case the HPPM meets all the above criteria. Further, we find that the explanation provided to the Heading 2309 of HSN, is akin to Chapter note of 23 of CETA. It is further explained that the product obtained from vegetable materials those of which have been treated to such an extent that the character of cellular structure of the original vegetable material is no longer recognizable in the microscope. Sub-heading 2309 of HSN also covers inter alia dog or cat food and other items and Sweetened forage and prepared animal feeding stuffs. It is evident from the above that the products classified under the heading can be composite food or supplementary food or for use in making composite or supplementary for using animal feed.

8. From the above, explanation to HSN explanatory note, it is evident that the products of this heading is not only covers preparation of a kind used in animal feeding but also includes products directly obtained from vegetable or animal or without addition of any nutrients. Therefore, the appellant's contention that the product to be classifiable under 2309 of CTA or 2302 of CETH should be only of a preparation containing added nutrients, is not acceptable and not justified. On perusal of the HSN explanatory note of Heading No. 2309, which is further grouped into three categories as complete food, food supplement and a preparation for used in making supplementary food.

9. The word "products" used in chapter note of chapter 23 and the subheading and "preparations" used in the chapter 23.09 is extensively dealt by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Tetragon Chemie Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector ofC.Ex., Bangalore - 1998(09)LCX0051 Eq 2001 (138) ELT 0414 (Tri.-LB), which is relied upon by both the sides is reproduced as under :-

"76. For understanding the implications of the use of the word 'products' in note under Chapter 23 of CETA 1985 and the use of the word 'preparations' under Heading 23.02, let us examine these two words, and then find out the implication of the word 'includes'.

77. We note that the issue as to what is meant by the word 'product' came up before the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Protein Products of India. The Apex Court in para 7 of its judgment held :

'The products in question are derived merely by the extraction of the mineral parts of the bones. Gelatine is obtained by a further treatment, with an alkali, of the ossein manufactured from the bones. It is the collagen which forms the organic content of the bones and is utilised in the manufacture of ossein and gelatine. The word 'product' is defined in Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary as "anything produced or obtained as a result of some operation or work". The expression 'bone products' therefore merely means anything produced or obtained from bones. Whether such derivation is by a simple physical process or by a chemical reaction would seem to make no difference to the end product. Buttermilk, for instance, does not cease to be a milk product merely because a chemical process is involved in the transformation. The ossein and gelatine manufactured by the respondent can, without straining the expression tised in the notification, be described as bone products. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that the products manufactured by the Respondent Company are eligible to the exemption under the Notification dated 30-6-1975.'

87. Examining the preparations mentioned under Heading 23.09 of HSN, we note that these preparations contain minerals, carbohydrates, vitamins etc. In construing entries of goods in excise, customs, or Sales Tax Acts, resort should normally be had not to the scientific or technical meaning but to their popular meaning viz. the meaning attached to the expressions by those dealing in them. The justification of the rule that the words are to be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense is well expressed by Justice Frankfurter : "After all legislation when not expressed in technical terms is addressed to common run of men and is, therefore, to be under-stood according to sense of the thing, as the ordinary man has a right to rely on ordinary words addressed." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently taken the view that, in determining the meaning or connotation of the words and expressions describing an article in a tariff schedule, one principle which is fairly well settled is that those words, and expressions should be construed in the sense in which they are understood in the trade by the dealer and consumer. The reason is that it is they who are concerned with it and it is the sense in which they understand it which constitutes the definitive index of legislative intention.

From the above Larger Bench's decision, it is evident that chapter note (1) of Heading 23 speaks of a product and does not speak of preparations. The HPPM is product produced or prepared from animal waste which is cleared as poultry feed supplement.

10. Sub-heading 2301.00 of CETA covers all residues and waste from food industries which includes bagasse and other waste of sugar manufacture and oil cakes. From the very nature of the description provided under subheading 2301.00 of CETA, it is abundantly clear that the goods classifiable under this heading are only residues and wastes arising from food industries. Whereas heading 2302.00 of CETA covers preparations of a kind used in animal feeding including Dog & Cat food. In the instant case, it is evident that the product cleared by the appellant is neither a Residue nor a waste from food industry. As seen from the series of process as explained above, the resultant product emerged is distinct from the mere poultry waste. The very fact that the appellants themselves described in their own invoices as "High Protein Poultry Mash" confirms the view. Added to that the appellants described the HPPM in the invoice documents as "Poultry feed supplement" and cleared to DTA. The appellants who are fully aware of the new product and its usage and on their own given a specific name and description as HPPM as "poultry feed supplement". It is a distinct product obtained from poultry wastes and it has lost the essential characteristics of poultry wastes such as intestine, heads, legs, feather, blood etc. The appellants described the product as HPPM itself suggest that it is a High Protein Product used as "Poultry feed supplement". Further, we find that this HPPM is not elsewhere classifiable in any other chapters of CETA. Therefore, the product HPPM is fully satisfies the description given under chapter note of heading 23 of CTA and chapter note of chapter 23 of CETA. Therefore, the product cannot be classifiable under Ch. 2301 of CETA, as a waste as claimed by the appellants. The product of a kind used in animal feeding cannot be covered under Ch. 2301 of CETA. By virtue of chapter note of chapter 23 of CETA read with Explanatory Note to sub-heading 2309 of HSN, we are of the considered view that the product HPPM is rightly classifiable under Ch. 2302 of CETA and Ch. 2309 of CTA. In the case of Laljee Godhoo & CO., Jubilant Organosys Ltd. (supra) and other cases, the citations relied by the appellants are distinguishable and not applicable to the present case.

11. At this juncture, it is also relevant to see that the Id. AR drew the attention of the explanatory note of HSN sub-heading 2301 (supra), which covers the products obtained by processing either whole animal or animal products (such as meat, meat offals) other than bones, horns, shells etc. By careful reading of the above explanation, we find that chapter heading 2301 includes the animal wastes such as meat and meat offals only other than bones and other materials. Whereas, as seen from the process, as explained by the appellants themselves before the lower authorities, it is very clear that the poultry wastes used by the appellants for preparation and manufacture of HPPM are intestines, feathers, heads, legs, blood and other offals. Poultry waste of heads, legs contains, bones and other materials. It cannot be called as only meat and meat offals, as claimed by the appellants. Therefore, the product HPPM cannot be classifiable under chapter 2301 of CETA. The Id. Advocate's contention that the department bringing new grounds is not acceptable as it is the evidence on record, the process explained by the appellants, which is clearly brought out in the show cause notice and also discussed in the order-in-original, and it has been admitted in their own letter while explaining the process of waste material.

12. Further, we find that from the fact that the appellants cleared the goods described as HPPM - "Poultry Feed Supplement" and the product is commercially known as HPPM, which has been understood in the trade as poultry feed supplement. In this regard, we rely upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Plasmac Machine Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1991 (51) E.LT. 161 (S.C.), the relevant paragraph is reproduced as under :-

"13. The submission that 'nuts' in Entry 52 are to be understood in the commercial sense is not disputed by the department. It is an accepted principle of classification that the goods should be classified according to their popular meaning or as they arc understood in their commercial sense and not as per the scientific or technical meaning. Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. -1981(03)LCX0011 Eq 1981 (008) ELT 0325 (S.C.) = 1981 (3) SCR 294 and Dunlop India Ltd. v. U.O.I - 1975(10)LCX0016 Eq 1983 (013) ELT 1566 (S.C.) = (1976) 2 SCC 241 have settled this proposition. How is the product identified by the class or section of people dealing with or using the product is also a test when the statute itself does not contain any definition and commercial parlance would assume importance when the goods are marketable as was held in Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collr. ofC. Ex. -1986(07)LCX0018 Eq 1986 (025) ELT 0473 (S.C.) = (1986) 3 SCC 480 and Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd, v. U.O.I. -1985(05)LCX0012 Eq 1985 (021) ELT 0003 (S.C.) = (1985) 3 SCC 284. In M/s. Asian Paints India Ltd. v. Collr. ofC. Ex. -1987(03)LCX0021 Eq 1988 (035) ELT 0003 (S.C.) = (1988) 2 SCC 470 which was a case of Emulsion paint, at para 8 it was said :

"It is well settled that the commercial meaning has to be given to the expression in tariff items. Where definition of a word has not been given, it must be construed in its popular sense. Popular sense means that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing, would attribute to it."

CIT v. M/s. Taj Mahal Hotel - 1972 (1) SCR 168 = (1971) 3 SCC 550 was applied."

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court's decision is squarely applicable in this case as the appellants themselves fully aware and rightly described the product HPPM, as poultry feed supplement and cleared the same to their customers.

14. In view of the forgoing discussions, we hold that the impugned product HPPM is rightly classifiable under chapter 2302 of CETA and 2309 of CTA and not under chapter 2301 of CETA. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has dealt the issue elaborately and clearly brought out all the aspects for classifying the product under chapter 2302 of CETA and chapter 2309 of CTA. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, all the three appeals filed by the appellants are rejected and the impugned orders are upheld.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 29-9-2014)

Equivalent 2015 (316) ELT 0341 (Tri. - Chennai)