Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Suguna Poultry Farms Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 18 December, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI Appeal No. E/770/2010 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.6/2010-Cus. 13.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore Suguna Poultry Farms Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Respondent
Appearance:
Ms.M.Swarupa, Advocate For the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM :
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Date of hearing / decision : 18.12.2017 FINAL ORDER No. 43167 / 2017 Per Bench The facts of the case are that appellants are a 100% EOU manufacturing and exporting processed Frozen Whole Chicken Meat. It emerged that the waste materials like intestine, feathers, heads and other offals are processed into another "High Protein Poultry Mash". Department took the view that this product is classifiable under Heading 2302 of Central Excise Tariff and 2309.90 of the Customs Tariff Heading as preparations used as poultry feed and hence proceedings were initiated against the appellant demanding Customs Duty of Rs.10,61,177/- with interest thereon for the period October 2002 to October 2005. Proceedings were confirmed by the original authority. Appeal filed with Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected vide impugned order dt. 13.09.2010. Hence this appeal.
2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Ms. Swarupa fairly submits that the very issue in dispute has already been decided against them in their own case for an earlier period by the Tribunal as reported in 2015 (316) ELT 341 (Tri.-Chennai).
3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R supports the impugned order.
4. On going through the facts, we find that the submission of the ld. Advocate to be fair and correct. Accordingly, following the ratio already laid down, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, for which reason appeal is rejected.
(dictated and pronounced in court)
(Madhu Mohan Damodhar) (Sulekha Beevi C.S)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
gs
4
Appeal No.E/770/2010