2002 (11) TMI 93 - SCH - Central Excise

Supreme Court: Spent sulphuric acid classified under Heading 28.07, not 38.23.

The Supreme Court of India held that Spent sulphuric acid falls under Heading 28.07, not 38.23 as determined by the Tribunal. This decision was influenced ... Classification of goods by tariff headings - Interpretation of tariff heading 28.07 - Interpretation of tariff heading 38.23 - Binding effect of Tribunal Larger Bench precedentClassification of goods by tariff headings - Interpretation of tariff heading 28.07 - Interpretation of tariff heading 38.23 - Binding effect of Tribunal Larger Bench precedent - Classification of Spent sulphuric acid - HELD THAT: - The Court considered whether Spent sulphuric acid should be classified under Heading 38.23, as held by the Tribunal in the impugned order, or under Heading 28.07 as contended by the Revenue. The respondent's Senior Counsel conceded that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Keti Chemicals, 1999 (113) E.L.T. 689 (Tribunal) settles the issue in favour of classification under Heading 28.07. In view of that binding precedent and the concession recorded, the Court accepted the conclusion that Spent sulphuric acid falls within Heading 28.07 and set aside the Tribunal's contrary classification under Heading 38.23.Impugned order set aside; Spent sulphuric acid held to be classifiable under Heading 28.07; appeals allowed.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order classifying Spent sulphuric acid under Heading 38.23 is set aside; on the authority of the Larger Bench decision in Keti Chemicals and the concession recorded, Spent sulphuric acid is to be classified under Heading 28.07 and the appeals are allowed. The Supreme Court of India ruled that Spent sulphuric acid is classified under Heading 28.07, not 38.23 as previously held by the Tribunal. The decision was based on a concession made by the Revenue's counsel, following a Larger Bench judgment. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. (Case citation: 2002 (11) TMI 93 - SC)