Case Details: Commissioner of Customs (NS1) Versus Venkateshwara B.V. Bio Corp. Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 31 Centax 40 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Sanjiv Khanna, CJ. & Sanjay Kumar, J.
- S/Shri N. Venkataraman, A.S.G., Ms Agrima Singh, V.C. Bharathi, B.K. Satija, Santosh Kumar, Advs. & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv., Jitendra Motwani, Udit Jain, Chirag Shetty, Karan Sachdev, Advs. & Abhishek Vikas, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The respondent-assessee imported animal feed additives/folic acid feed premixes under brand names such as Layvit Premix, Brovit Premix, Breevit Premix, Brovit Plus Premix, and Composite Premix, describing them as preparations used in animal feeding. The imported goods contained vitamins, minerals, and other carriers, and were certified by the foreign supplier as ‘feed grade’ and labelled as ‘For animal use only and not for medicinal use or for human use.’ The Department of Revenue contended that the goods were classifiable under Heading 2936 of the First Schedule (Import Tariff) to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as chemically defined compounds.
However, the Customs Laboratory test merely indicated the presence of vitamins and pro-vitamins at varying percentages and did not conclusively determine whether the goods were separate chemically defined organic compounds or preparations of a kind used in animal feeding. The matter was placed before the Bombay CESTAT, which relied upon Circular No. 188/22/96-CX, dated 26-03-1996, and held that the goods were ‘animal feed preparations’ known as ‘pre-mixes’ or ‘additives’ containing vitamins or pro-vitamins, classifiable under Tariff Item 2309 90 90. The Department of Revenue filed an appeal against the said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Bombay CESTAT. After condoning the delay, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue. It was observed that the impugned goods, being animal feed preparations, had been rightly classified under Tariff Item 2309 90 90 in light of the guidance provided under Circular No. 188/22/96-CX, dated 26-03-1996. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
List of Cases Cited
- B.V. Bio Corp. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 26 Centax 283 (Tri. – Bom.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 188/22/96-C.X., dated 26-3-1996 [Para 2]
