1997 (11) TMI 177 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal on Mineral Classification Dismissed under Notification No. 23/55-C.E.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the classification under Notification No. 23/55-C.E. for Calcite Mineral/Chalk Mineral and ... Chalk - Words and phrases Issues: Classification under Notification No. 23/55-C.E. for Calcite Mineral/Chalk Mineral and Wollastonite/Komolite powder.In this case, the appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 23/55-C.E. for Calcite Mineral/Chalk Mineral and Wollastonite/Komolite powder. The lower authorities denied the benefit, leading to the present appeal. The appellant's advocate argued that the notification exempts 'chalk,' asserting that calcite is similar to chalk based on definitions from the Condensed Chemical Dictionary. He further contended that Wollastonite falls under the definition of silica, which is also exempted. The advocate emphasized that despite minor differences, as both products serve the same purpose as extenders and fillers, a liberal interpretation of the terms should be applied.On the other hand, the Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities, citing a Supreme Court judgment that notifications must be strictly construed without room for liberal interpretation. He pointed out that the notification specifically lists categories using the word 'namely,' indicating a limited scope. After reviewing the submissions and definitions provided, the Tribunal noted the distinct differences between chalk and calcite, as well as between silica and Wollastonite. The definitions clarified that chalk is derived from marine organisms, while calcite is a form of natural calcium carbonate. Similarly, Wollastonite is a calcium silicate, chemically different from silica. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the products claimed did not match those specified in the exemption notification, emphasizing that the use of 'namely' restricts the scope to the named products. Therefore, the plea for a liberal construction of the notification was deemed unfounded, and the appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower authorities' decision.