TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Lead Oxide Grey / Lead Sub Oxide was classifiable under Heading 2824.00 or under Heading 38.23 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (ii) Whether the department could approve the freshly filed classification list under Heading 38.23 despite an earlier classification practice under Heading 2824.00.
Issue (i): Whether Lead Oxide Grey / Lead Sub Oxide was classifiable under Heading 2824.00 or under Heading 38.23 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Analysis: The product was accepted to be not a 100% oxidised compound and contained free metallic lead. It was treated as a specially prepared mixture obtained by controlled oxidation of lead. On that basis, it was held not to be a separate chemically defined compound falling within Heading 2824.00. Reliance was placed on the HSN Explanatory Notes and the earlier Tribunal view that such grey oxide falls under Chapter 38. The fact that the product had uses other than storage batteries was held to be irrelevant to tariff classification.
Conclusion: The product was held classifiable under Heading 38.23 and not under Heading 2824.00, against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the department could approve the freshly filed classification list under Heading 38.23 despite an earlier classification practice under Heading 2824.00.
Analysis: The earlier classification was treated as an error and the present matter was considered an approval of a fresh classification list, not a barred modification of an existing final approval. Since notice had been issued before the fresh approval, the department was held entitled to adopt the correct classification.
Conclusion: The departmental approval of the fresh classification list under Heading 38.23 was upheld, against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The classification under Heading 38.23 was sustained and both appeals failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A product that is a specially prepared mixture containing free metallic lead and not a separate chemically defined compound is classifiable on its composition and tariff description, not on its multiple end uses, and an earlier mistaken classification does not prevent correction when a fresh classification list is considered.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
