https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449878 CESTAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant regarding classification of imported quicklime. The tribunal held that quicklime should be classified under CTI 2522 1000 rather than CTI 2825 9090 as claimed by Revenue. Chemical test reports showed CaO content of 91.70-92.80%, which fell short of the 98% purity requirement for classification under heading 2825. The tribunal found no basis for applying GIR Rule 3 and confirmed the goods were appropriately classifiable under CTI 2522 10 00, setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeal. en-us Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Feb 2024 11:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449878 CESTAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant regarding classification of imported quicklime. The tribunal held that quicklime should be classified under CTI 2522 1000 rather than CTI 2825 9090 as claimed by Revenue. Chemical test reports showed CaO content of 91.70-92.80%, which fell short of the 98% purity requirement for classification under heading 2825. The tribunal found no basis for applying GIR Rule 3 and confirmed the goods were appropriately classifiable under CTI 2522 10 00, setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449878