1999 (5) TMI 216 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds classification of Fluorspar briquettes under sub-heading 6807.00

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVLP. CORPN. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., VADODARA

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals and affirmed the classification of Fluorspar briquettes under sub-heading 6807.00. The Tribunal determined that the ... Classification of goods Issues: Classification of Fluorspar briquettes under sub-heading 2505.00 or 6807.00.In this case, the appellants manufactured Acid grade and Metallurgical grade Fluorspar in powder form, with the Metallurgical Fluorspar being cleared in both powder and briquettes form. The classification list filed by the assessee claimed that all forms should be classified as Fluorspar under sub-heading 2505.00. However, the Assistant Collector classified the briquettes under sub-heading 6807.00, resulting in a demand for differential duty. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this classification, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal.The main argument presented by the appellants was that no process of manufacture was involved in making the briquettes from Fluorspar powder, and thus, the briquettes should merit the same classification as the powder. They relied on various judgments to support their claim, emphasizing that certain processes did not amount to manufacture. Despite this argument, both lower authorities had already determined that the question of manufacture was not relevant in this case.Upon analyzing the contesting tariff entries and Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 25, the Tribunal found that the briquettes, obtained by mixing Fluorspar with binders, fell outside the scope of Chapter 25 due to the specific provisions outlined in the chapter note. The Tribunal emphasized that when a chapter note clearly defines the parameters for classification, considerations of whether a permissible process amounts to manufacture should not impact the tariff coverage.Furthermore, the Tribunal examined the end-use of the briquettes, noting that while the classification list mentioned their use in making steel, the choice of three different binders indicated potential variations in the end product. The Tribunal observed that if the end-use was singular, there would be no need for different binders with distinct qualities. Therefore, even without delving into the question of whether mixing constituted manufacture, the Tribunal concluded that the end product could significantly differ from the base product, supporting a classification under sub-heading 6807.00.Based on these considerations, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and affirming the classification of Fluorspar briquettes under sub-heading 6807.00.