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 affirms silica's exemption eligibility under Notification No. 23/55. Appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT Versus MADHU CHEMICALS, BHAVNAGAR</h3> COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT Versus MADHU CHEMICALS, BHAVNAGAR - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 166 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Notification No. 23/55 to precipitated silica.2. Classification of precipitated silica under the Central Excise Tariff.3. Determination of whether precipitated silica qualifies as a mineral.4. Consideration of the manufacturing process of precipitated silica.5. Relevance of the use of precipitated silica as an extender or filler.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Notification No. 23/55 to Precipitated Silica:The primary issue was whether Notification No. 23/55, which exempts certain minerals used as extenders, fillers, or diluents, applies to precipitated silica. The appellant argued that the notification applies only to mineral silica subjected to physical processing and not to precipitated silica, which is a chemically synthesized product. The respondent contended that precipitated silica should be included under the term 'silica' in the notification.2. Classification of Precipitated Silica Under the Central Excise Tariff:The appellant argued that precipitated silica should be classified under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff (CET) as it is a manufactured product, not a mineral product. The respondent maintained that precipitated silica should fall under Item 14, CET, as it is a processed mineral.3. Determination of Whether Precipitated Silica Qualifies as a Mineral:The tribunal had to determine if precipitated silica could be classified as a mineral. The appellant argued that since precipitated silica is a synthetic product, it does not qualify as a mineral. The respondent countered that precipitated silica, being derived from silica sand, should be considered a processed mineral.4. Consideration of the Manufacturing Process of Precipitated Silica:The manufacturing process of precipitated silica involves converting silica sand into sodium silicate, which is then reacted with sulfuric acid to form precipitated silica. The tribunal examined whether this process, which involves both chemical and physical changes, affects the classification of precipitated silica as a mineral.5. Relevance of the Use of Precipitated Silica as an Extender or Filler:The tribunal considered whether the use of precipitated silica as an extender or filler qualifies it for the exemption under Notification No. 23/55. The respondent provided evidence, including references to technical literature, that precipitated silica is commonly used as an extender or filler.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Notification No. 23/55 to Precipitated Silica:The tribunal noted that Notification No. 23/55 exempts certain minerals when used as extenders, fillers, or diluents. The notification lists 'silica' but does not specifically mention 'precipitated silica.' The tribunal referred to technical literature, which classifies precipitated silica as a mineral filler, supporting the respondent's claim. The tribunal concluded that precipitated silica falls within the ambit of the notification as it is recognized as a mineral filler.2. Classification of Precipitated Silica Under the Central Excise Tariff:The tribunal examined the classification of precipitated silica under the CET. The appellant argued for classification under Item 68, CET, while the respondent argued for Item 14, CET. The tribunal noted that Notification No. 23/55 does not specify a CET item for eligibility, focusing instead on the use of the product. The tribunal concluded that the classification under Item 68, CET, does not preclude eligibility for the exemption under the notification.3. Determination of Whether Precipitated Silica Qualifies as a Mineral:The tribunal considered various definitions and technical literature to determine if precipitated silica qualifies as a mineral. The 'Handbook of Fillers and Reinforcements for Plastics' and the 'Glossary of Chemical Terms' describe precipitated silica as a mineral filler. The tribunal concluded that precipitated silica, despite being synthetically produced, qualifies as a mineral for the purposes of Notification No. 23/55.4. Consideration of the Manufacturing Process of Precipitated Silica:The tribunal reviewed the manufacturing process, noting that it involves both chemical and physical changes. Despite these changes, the final product, precipitated silica, retains the chemical formula SiO2, similar to natural silica. The tribunal concluded that the manufacturing process does not disqualify precipitated silica from being considered a mineral.5. Relevance of the Use of Precipitated Silica as an Extender or Filler:The tribunal considered evidence that precipitated silica is commonly used as an extender or filler. References to technical literature, including the 'Pigment Handbook' and the 'Handbook of Fillers & Reinforcements for Plastics,' supported this use. The tribunal concluded that the use of precipitated silica as an extender or filler qualifies it for the exemption under Notification No. 23/55.Conclusion:The tribunal upheld the respondent's claim that precipitated silica is eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 23/55. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the order of the Collector (Appeals).
TaxTMI 