ORDER
Shri S.S. Sekhon
1. When this appeal was called, nobody appeared, however letter dt.17.1.2001 has been received from the appellants enclosing written submissions and to consider the appeal papers already filed before a decision is given.
2. The question in this appeal is whether ‘fish meal’ by itself could be regarded as Animal feed by the Trade and whether such ‘Fish Meal’ was straight away fed to the animals without mixing molasses, salt etc. The matter was decided after conducting market enquiries, the Assistant Collector came to a conclusion that fish-meal was not recognised by the trade as animal feed supplement and since it is high in protien, it is mixed with maize etc before feeding the animals and therefore decided the case in favour of the Department which was confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) Bangalore, against these orders the present appeal is filed on the following grounds:-
a) The matter was remanded vide Order No.318/86 dt.22.5.86 after denovo adjudication in the case of M/s.Kodiyal Foods & Fats Pvt. Ltd., and Assistant Collector after denovo consideration has granted refund of the export duty paid on Fish-meal.
b) Madras High Court in its judgement dt. 16.8.89 in W.A.No.33/84 and 527/80 has laid the scope and ambit of item 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
c) The Department has not established for which use the ‘Fish Meal’ was put i.e. for Industrial use or Fertiliser use or as an ingredient in the manufacture of feed.
d) As the matter is pending in Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Cotton & Oil Mills reported in 1991 (55) ELT 552 (T). The matter should be kept pending.
3. In the letter dt.17.1.2001 the appellants have reiterated n their appeal and have not mentioned anything about the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Cotton Oil Mills as relied upon by them and requested their case be kept pending.
4. We have considered the submissions and find the question of what should be ‘animal feed’ in the case of Surendra Cotton and Oil Mills has finally been decided as reported in 2001 (127) ELT 3 SC and this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would be applicable in the present case also following the same, this present order is set aside and matter remanded, to the original authority for considering the question afresh in light of this decision.
5. In view of our findings we allow the appeal in the above terms.
(Pronounced and dictated in the Open Court)