Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether burnt lime manufactured by the appellant, having calcium oxide purity below 98%, was classifiable under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and therefore not liable to central excise duty.
Analysis: The product was shown to contain calcium oxide of only about 85.9% to 92% purity. The HSN Explanatory Notes for Chapter 28 cover calcium oxide only in the pure state or of high purity, whereas quicklime is excluded from Chapter 28 and falls under Chapter 25. The specific tariff entry for quicklime prevailed over the residuary entry under Chapter 28, and the classification adopted by the department could not be sustained on the test reports and tariff notes relied upon.
Conclusion: Burnt lime was rightly classifiable under Chapter 25 and not under Chapter 28, so the duty demand and consequential levy could not stand.