Copper and alloy classification turns on technical standards and predominance by weight; brass granules and billets were upheld as classified.

For classification under Chapter XV, the applicable heading for copper and copper alloys must be determined from the relevant section notes and accepted technical standards, not by importing definitions from another chapter. Brass granules were treated as copper granules on the predominance-by-weight principle and were classified under CETH 74.06, not CETH 7403.21. Cast copper articles were held to be billets rather than ingots because billets are cast products intended for further working, while ingots are mainly for remelting; they therefore remained eligible for exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-CE, as amended. The first appellate authority's orders were upheld and the Revenue's appeals were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether brass granules were classifiable under CETH 7403.21 as claimed by the Revenue or under CETH 74.06 as claimed by the assessee. (ii) Whether the cast copper articles were classifiable as billets as claimed by the assessee or as ingots as claimed by the Revenue.

Issue (i): Whether brass granules were classifiable under CETH 7403.21 as claimed by the Revenue or under CETH 74.06 as claimed by the assessee.

Analysis: The classification depended on the tariff scheme governing copper and copper alloys, the HSN notes, and the statutory rule for composite articles. Since copper predominated by weight, the goods were treated as copper granules on the predominance criterion. The exclusion urged by the Revenue was rejected because the scheme of Section XV and the relevant tariff entries showed that copper alloys were not outside the ambit of the assessee's claimed heading.

Conclusion: Brass granules were correctly classified under CETH 74.06, and the Revenue's contention for classification under CETH 7403.21 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the cast copper articles were classifiable as billets as claimed by the assessee or as ingots as claimed by the Revenue.

Analysis: The definitions in Chapter 72 of the tariff were held inapplicable to entries under Chapter 74 because those definitions were not framed as section notes for Section XV. The more appropriate guide was the Indian Standard for copper and copper alloys, under which billets are cast products intended for further working, whereas ingots are primarily for remelting. As the Revenue did not show that the cast products were meant for remelting, the goods were held to answer the description of billets and to remain within the exemption notification.

Conclusion: The cast copper articles were billets, not ingots, and were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, as amended.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the first appellate authority were upheld and the Revenue's appeals were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: For classification under Chapter XV, the description applicable to copper and copper alloys must be determined by the relevant section notes and accepted technical standards, and not by importing definitions from a different chapter; where copper predominates by weight, the composite article is to be classified accordingly, and cast copper products intended for further working are billets rather than ingots.

---