Excise classification of rasching rings turned on stoneware versus chinaware and porcelainware, defeating duty under the invoked tariff entry.

Rasching rings were found to be unglazed, semi-vitreous articles composed mainly of alumina and silica, with no china clay content, and the technical material treated them as stoneware rather than chinaware or porcelainware. The Chief Chemist's reports did not support classification under Tariff Item 23B of the Central Excise Tariff, so there was no basis to disturb the appellate finding. The goods were therefore held not classifiable under the invoked tariff entry and not liable to duty on that basis, and the review proceedings were dropped in favour of the party.

---

---

Issues: Whether rasching rings manufactured by the party were classifiable under Tariff Item 23B of the Central Excise Tariff as chinaware or porcelainware and therefore excisable.

Analysis: The record showed that the articles were unglazed, semi-vitreous, composed mainly of alumina and silica, and did not contain china clay. The technical material and test reports relied upon by the party indicated that the goods were stoneware and not chinaware or porcelainware. The Chief Chemist's reports also did not support classification under Tariff Item 23B. In these circumstances, there was no basis to disturb the appellate finding that the goods did not fall within the tariff entry invoked.

Conclusion: The rasching rings were not classifiable under Tariff Item 23B and were not liable to duty on that basis; the review proceedings were dropped in favour of the party.

---