Colloidal sodium silicate exemption upheld where colloidal form alone did not prove the goods were unrefined or dutiable.

Colloidal sodium silicate was treated as falling within the concessional exemption for sodium silicate because the test report's description as "colloidal" did not, by itself, establish that the goods were unrefined or outside the exempted category. The later clarification in Notification No. 148/81-C.E. was read as explanatory of the exemption's scope, and the Revenue had not made clear findings showing ineligibility. On that basis, exemption under Notification No. 154/70-C.E. was available and the duty demand based on the report could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether colloidal sodium silicate was covered by Notification No. 154/70-C.E. for the purpose of concessional assessment and whether the duty demand based on the test report could be sustained.

Analysis: The requisition for testing described the sample as refined liquid sodium silicate, and the report only stated that it was in colloidal form. The physical state of a colloid was held not to be the same thing as lack of refinement or impurity. The later clarification in Notification No. 148/81-C.E. was treated as explanatory of the scope of the exemption for sodium silicate, and the Revenue had not shown by clear findings that the goods were unrefined or outside the exempted category. In these circumstances, the exemption could not be denied merely because the product was described as colloidal sodium silicate.

Conclusion: Colloidal sodium silicate was held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 154/70-C.E., and the demand was unsustainable.

---