Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1998 (2) TMI 276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Detergents. They filed classification list with effect from 1-3-1987 and 1-4-1987 wherein they had mentioned the products `Spent Sulphric Acid' indicating Chapter Heading 2807.00 and seeking exemption under Notification No. 170/65, dated 23-10-1965. The respondents filed another classification list with effect from 21-12-1987 but, changed their earlier stand as apparent from the remark that Spent Sulphuric Acid was non-taxable either under Chapter 34 or 28. 3. They also explained the process of manufacture of their goods as follows :- "While manufacturing acid slurry (an organic surface active agent) they mix sulphuric acid or oleum to react with LAB (Linear Alkyl Benzene) an organic chemical." The Department was not satisfied and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... spent sulphuric acid is not a manufactured product is correct. 8. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that there is no doubt about it that Heading 28.07 covers `Sulphuric Acid and Anhydrides thereof; Oleum'. Therefore, sulphuric acid as well as oleum are classifiable under Heading 2807.00 but this, by itself, was not sufficient to classify the respondents' product under this heading. It has already been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the Tribunal (following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments) in a number of cases that merely an entry in the tariff was not sufficient to consider a product as an excisable commodity. Such an entry, in my opinion, merely raises a rebuttable presumption and therefore, the onu....