Lead ore classification turns on reliable mineral evidence, and unsupported distinction from concentrate cannot sustain duty demand.

Imported consignments were treated as lead ore rather than lead concentrate because the classification turned on the mineral's character and the reliability of the material used to distinguish ore from concentrate. Reliance on Wikipedia was rejected as an authoritative basis, and the record showed that lead ore may contain varying, even high, lead content without ceasing to be ore. Earlier acceptance of similar consignments, together with the absence of a dependable test basis for the contrary departmental view, supported the classification in favour of lead ore. The duty demand and penalty were therefore not sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported consignments were classifiable as lead ore or lead concentrate, and whether the exemption under the relevant central excise notifications was available.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the nature of the imported mineral and the material relied upon to distinguish ore from concentrate. The reasoning rejected reliance on Wikipedia as an authoritative source and noted that lead ores can occur with varying lead content, including substantially high percentages. The earlier acceptance of consignments with lower lead content, the absence of a reliable test basis to support the department's contrary view, and the material showing that ore may still remain ore notwithstanding processing and higher metal content, all weighed against the impugned classification.

Conclusion: The imported goods were treated as lead ore and not lead concentrate, and the duty demand and penalty were not sustained.

---