TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules on customs classification dispute in favor of Jindal Stainless.</h1> <h3>M/s. Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs NEW DELHI</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, M/s Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd., in a customs classification dispute over imported quick lime. The ... Change in classification of imported goods - Quick Lime - purity is less than 98% - Adjudicating Authority has held that product imported by them is classifiable under heading 28 25 of customs Tariff Act as against heading 25 22 claimed by the appellant - HELD THAT:- The ratio of decisions of Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD-III VERSUS M/S BHADRADRI MINERALS PVT. LTD. [2015 (10) TMI 1836 - CESTAT BANGALORE] is applicable to the facts of the instant case where it was held that the purity of the burnt lime is 70 to 75% only. Therefore, in view of the Board s Circular as well as HSN Explanatory Note, the product manufactured by the respondent has to be classified under CTH 25 only. The product is rightly classified under chapter 2 - Appeal allowed. Issues:Classification of imported product under customs Tariff Act.Analysis:The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of quick lime imported by M/s Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority classified the product under heading 28 25, while the appellant claimed it should be under heading 25 22. The appellant argued that even if the limestone is roasted or calcined to manufacture Quicklime, it should still be classified under chapter heading 2522, as Quicklime is obtained by calcining limestone. The appellant relied on the decision of Tribunal in a similar case to support their argument.The Commissioner changed the classification based on the percentage of CaO in the product and the decision of the Advance Ruling Authority. The appellant contested this decision, stating that the product does not contain 95 to 97% calcium oxide and provided evidence to support their claim. They also argued that the decision of the Advance Ruling Authority should not be mechanically applied to their case due to substantial differences in circumstances.The Departmental Representative supported the Revenue's decision, citing test reports showing the CaO percentage in the range of 92 to 97%. They also referred to previous Tribunal decisions to justify their position.After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal found that the product imported by the appellant fell under the classification of chapter 25. They emphasized that the purity of the product was below 98%, making it applicable to the specific classification under heading 2522. The Tribunal distinguished previous decisions cited by both parties based on the alignment of Central Excise Tariff with the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) and the purity levels of the imported product. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal principles, and decisions considered by the Tribunal in resolving the classification dispute for the imported product.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
