TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....03.2019 2. C/75710/2023 BoE No. 8611868 dated 10.05.2022 Order-in-Appeal Nos. KOL/CUS(PORT)/KS/449-451/2023 dated 07.06.2023 3. C/75711/2023 BoE No. 8613038 dated 10.05.2022 4. C/75712/2023 BoE No. 9270531 dated 24.06.2022 5. C/76047/2024 BoE No. 7488850 dated 23.08.2023 and BoE No. 8018772 dated 26.09.2023 Order-in-Appeal Nos. KOL/CUS(PORT)/KS/317-318/2024 dated 15.05.2024 6. C/76638/2024 BoE No. 9241433 dated 15.12.2023 Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS(PORT)/KS/468/2024 dated 06.08.2024 7. C/75443/2025 BoE No. 2482030 dated 08.03.2024 Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS/PORT/KS/515/2024 dated 03.09.2024 8. C/75522/2025 BoE No. 3937574 dated 11.06.2024 Order-in-Appeal Nos. KOL/CUS/PORT/KS/672-673/2024 dated 17.12.2024 9. C/75526/2025 BoE No. 3936223 dated 11.06.2024 10. C/75943/2025 BoE No. 5457477 dated 06.09.2024 Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS/PORT/KS/121/2025 dated 25.03.2025 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed the impugned Bills of Entry for clearance of import consignments declared as "PCC Lime 0/20MM (Quicklime)". For the goods imported vide the afores....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt for the goods under import in these cases is between as '93.7%' and '97.56%'. For ease of reference, the said Table submitted by the appellant is reproduced below:- SL. NO APPEAL NO. PERCENTAGE OF CAO PAGE NO. 1. C/76527/2019 94.87% (BoE No. 6445530 dated 19.05.2018) Internal page no.4 of 22 of the impugned order 96.88% (BoE No. 7299637 dated 20.07.2018) Internal page no.4 of 22 of the impugned order 2. C/75710/2023 97.06% Analysis Certificate at page no.36 of the Appeal 3. C/75711/2023 97.56% Analysis Certificate at page no.36 of the Appeal 4. C/75712/2023 96.93% Analysis Certificate at page no.36 of the Appeal 5. C/76047/2024 93.9% Material Test Certificate at page no.49 of the Appeal 6. C/76638/2024 94.3% Material Test Certificate at page no.49 of the Appeal 7. C/75443/2025 94.2% Material Test Certificate at page no.49 of the Appeal 8. C/75522/2025 93.8% Material Test Certificate at page no.54 of the Appeal 9. C/75526/2025 94.2% Material Test Certificate at page no.54 of the Appeal 10. C/75943/2025 93.7% Material Test Certificate at page no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. Except where their context or Note 4 to this Chapter otherwise requires, the headings of this Chapter cover only products which are in the crude state or which have been washed (even with chemical substances eliminating the impurities without changing the structure of the product), crushed, ground, powdered, levigated, sifted, screened, concentrated by flotation, magnetic separation or other mechanical or physical processes (except crystallization), but not products that have been roasted, calcined, obtained by mixing or subjected to processing beyond that mentioned in each heading. 2522 Quicklime, Slaked Lime and Hydraulic Lime, other than Calcium Oxide and Hydroxide of Heading 2825 2522 10 00 - Quicklime 2522 20 00-Slaked lime 2522 30 00-Hydraulic lime The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the classification of the product under CTH 2522 on the ground that it is calcined product which is excluded as per Note 1 reproduced above and classified the same under CTH 2825 as separately defined compound. 7. Now, let's see Chapter Heading 28, which is reproduced below: Chapter 28: Inorganic chemicals, organic or inor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded (heading 2522) 9. Based on the above Tariff Headings and the Explanation given in the HSN Notes, it is very clear that "Quick Lime" is classifiable under CTH 2522 unless the chemical analysis proves that it has purity of 98% calcium oxide. Admittedly, in the present case, the purity is only 92%. Moreover, there is a specific classification of the product "Quick Lime" under CTH 2522 1000 while the classification prompted by Revenue is 2825 9090 is only a 'Residuary Entry', and taking into consideration the Interpretative Rules of Classification, specific heading is to be preferred to the residuary entry unless it is established that the product is pure calcium oxide. The decision in the case of CCE, Hyderabad-Ill vs. Bhadradri Minerals Pvt Limited (supra) relied upon by the appellant has been brushed aside only on the ground that the product there was 80%, on the same analogy that the calcium oxide with purity less than 98% does not merit classification under CTH 2825. 10. This Tribunal in the case of M/s. Viraj Profiles Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai: 2023 (10) TMI 1260 CESTAT Mumbai dated 20.10.2023 in an identical set of fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re calcium oxide) is obtained by calcining limestone containing very little or no clay. It combines very rapidly with water, giving off considerable heat and producing slaked lime (Calcium hydroxide) The heading excludes purified calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide (heading 28.25)." The HSN also prescribes as follows: "1. Except where their context..... otherwise requires...... but not products that have been roasted, calcined, obtained by mixing or subjected to processing beyond that mentioned in each heading." 4.2 It is seen that Revenue has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nuchem Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which was upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court. It is seen that the said decision has been given in the context of Central Excise duties At the material time. Central Excise Tariff was not aligned to HSN. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the Central excise Tariff was align with HSN only with effect from 20.03.1990. He pointed out that this distinction has been specifically examined by Tribunal in the case of Bhadradri Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in para 5.1 and 5.2. In view of above, it is apparent that the said de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for its product under Tariff Item 2825 90 90 instead of claiming duty reliet available for quick lime. Apparently, the applicant being convinced of the correct classification, would like to avert the risk of availing the benefit the strength of decisions rendered in a different context and then facing a backlash at a later stage." From the above it is apparent that the facts and circumstances were significantly different. 5. As a result of above observations, we find that the ratio of decisions of Tribunal in the case of M/s Bhadradri Minerals Pvt. Ltd. is applicable to the facts of the instant case. Therefore, the product is rightly classified under chapter 25. The appeal is consequently allowed." 19. In view of the foregoing detailed discussions, analysis and findings recorded in the above paragraphs, we conclude that the imported goods 'quicklime' would be appropriately classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 2522 10 00 and not as 'other' under the Customs Tariff Item 2825 90 90, as claimed by Revenue". 11. In the present case as discussed above, the chemical analysis clearly states that the purity is only 92% and accordingly, t....