CC Vs. C.P. AQUACULTURE (INDIA) PVT.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application filed by the department in appeal No. C/540/2006 is for stay of operation of the impugned order which is in favour of the respondents. In the remaining appeals, there are two applications each, one for similar stay and the other for condonation of delay of appeal. These appeals are late by only 8 days. After considering the explanation for this delay, and hearing both sides, we condone the delay. The remaining applications are for stay of operation of the impugned orders.

(2.) AFTER considering the submissions of both sides, we find that the substantive issue raised by the Revenue in all the appeals is already covered against them by Final Order No. 165/2007 dt. 22.2.2007 passed by this Bench in Appeal No. C/476/06 (Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Avanthi Feeds Ltd.). Hence, after dismissing the stay applications, we take up the appeals for final disposal.

(3.) THE respondents in these appeals had imported "Thai Fish Meal" from Singapore and filed Bills of Entry for its clearance claiming benefit of Notification No. 20/2006 -Cus. dt. 1.3.2006 (Sl. No. 15). The goods were assessed accordingly and clearance allowed. Subsequently, however, department proposed to deny the benefit of the Notification to the importer, following certain audit objections. It was alleged that the item imported by the respondents was not 'finished aquatic feed' but only an input for its manufacture. This view of the department was upheld by the assessing authority and, accordingly, the assessments were finalized. The appeals preferred by the importers against these assessments were allowed by the appellate Commissioner. Hence these appeals of the Revenue. A similar set of facts were considered in the case of Avanthi Feeds Ltd. (supra) and the benefit of the Notification was allowed to them. We think, it is enough now to reproduce paragraphs 3 to 5 of the order which we passed in that case, for the present purpose: 3. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we note that the short question arising for consideration is whether the goods imported by the respondents would answer the description given at Sl. No. 15 in the Table annexed to the above Notification. This description reads as under: