TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revenue appeals rejected, product classified under Heading No. 44.03 upheld. Chemical treatment not for densification.</h1> <h3>COMMR. OF C. EX., GHAZIABAD Versus NORTH STREET COOLING TOWER (P) LTD.</h3> COMMR. OF C. EX., GHAZIABAD Versus NORTH STREET COOLING TOWER (P) LTD. - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 610 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Classification of product under Central Excise TariffAnalysis:The judgment involves the classification of a product manufactured by a company under the Central Excise Tariff. The Revenue filed appeals against the Order-in-Appeal that classified the product under Heading No. 44.03 of the Tariff. The main contention was whether the wooden pieces, chemically treated by the company, should be classified as densified wood under Heading No. 44.09 instead.The Revenue argued that the wooden pieces, chemically treated to prevent termites and fungi, should be classified as densified wood under Heading No. 44.09 based on Note 2 to Chapter 44 of the Tariff. They highlighted that the treatment aimed not only to protect against termites and fungi but also to provide strength to the wood. The Chemical Examiner confirmed the chemical treatment but did not conclusively state that the wood was densified.In contrast, the Respondent contended that the chemical treatment was solely for termite and fungus prevention, not for densification. They referred to Indian Standard No. IS-401-1982 to support their argument that the treatment was standard for termite protection in Cooling Tower Timbers.The Tribunal analyzed Note 2 to Chapter 44, emphasizing that densified wood must undergo chemical or physical treatment to increase density, hardness, and mechanical strength. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to prove that the treatment transformed the wood into densified wood as per the defined characteristics. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the treatment was for anti-termite and anti-fungal purposes, not for densification, leading to the classification under Heading No. 44.03. Consequently, the appeals by the Revenue were rejected, upholding the original classification under Heading No. 44.03 of the Central Excise Tariff.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 