Ore classification for mineral sand survives ordinary physical processing, preserving CVD exemption and defeating extended limitation.

Imported rutile/leucoxene sand remained ore, not concentrate, because wet concentration, attrition, secondary concentration and dry mill processing were ordinary physical or mechanical separation processes that did not alter the mineral's chemical composition. The HSN notes and Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 26 supported ore classification, while the IIT report did not displace the revenue's concerns and the Indian Bureau of Mines described the goods as naturally occurring rutile ore/leucoxene sand. The ore-based CVD exemption was therefore admissible and the demand failed on merits. The demand was also time-barred, as the department had prior knowledge and the dispute involved classification interpretation rather than suppression or wilful misstatement, so the extended period could not be invoked.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported rutile/leucoxene sand was ore or concentrate, and therefore eligible for exemption from countervailing duty under Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 as superseded by Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the imported rutile/leucoxene sand was ore or concentrate, and therefore eligible for exemption from countervailing duty under Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 as superseded by Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012.

Analysis: For headings 2601 to 2617, Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 26 treats minerals as ores unless they have been subjected to processes not normal to the metallurgical industry. The HSN notes distinguish concentrates as ores from which foreign matter is removed by special treatment, while ordinary physical or physico-chemical operations normal to preparation of ores do not alter the basic character of the mineral. On the facts, the supplier's processes of wet concentration, attrition, secondary concentration, and dry mill processing were found to be normal physical and mechanical separation processes and not special treatment altering chemical composition. The report of IIT, Powai did not satisfactorily answer the revenue's specific queries and, in any event, indicated concentration based on physical properties without change in chemical composition. The report of the Indian Bureau of Mines, a specialist mining authority, described the goods as naturally occurring rutile ore/leucoxene sand and corroborated their character as ore. The goods were also sold and described commercially as sand, not as concentrate. The later chapter note on manufacture could not override the basic classification exercise where the goods had not ceased to be ore.

Conclusion: The imported goods were ores and not concentrates, and the exemption from countervailing duty was admissible; the demand failed on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The department had knowledge of the issue as early as August 2011 when samples were sent for testing, and the dispute turned on interpretation of tariff notes, HSN notes, and the nature of the process undertaken. In such circumstances, non-payment of duty could not be attributed to any mala fide suppression or wilful misstatement so as to justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand was also barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand and penalties were set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Separation of mineral sand by ordinary physical or mechanical processes that do not alter the chemical composition of the mineral does not convert ore into concentrate or amount to manufacture for the purpose of denying the ore-based exemption.

---