2013 (9) TMI 101 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of goods - Nature of goods - Whether the goods imported by the assesses and declared as raw/rough marble blocks, claiming duty free clearance against DEEC licence were actually rough Marbles or the same are limestone Held that - There was no mis-declaration calling for any confiscation or imposition of penalty - There was no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Once it was held that the goods were capable of being used as marble - the same cannot be held to be limestone - The Revenue s stand that the part of the test report which is to the effect that the goods can be used as commercial marble was redundant because once identity of the goods was established, the principal use had no relevance for the purpose of classification, cannot be accepted - Relying upon Ramdhan Mohan Lal v. CCE Jaipur 2008 (10) TMI 445 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI and Stone Man Marble Indus v. CCE, Jaipur 2008 (11) TMI 215 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - The Commissioner (Appeals) had referred to various technical meaning of the product and has come to a conclusion of correct findings that the goods were marble as declared by the assesse Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods as limestone or marble for duty clearance against DEEC license.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the classification of goods imported by the respondent as either limestone or marble for duty clearance against a DEEC license. The Commissioner (Appeals) had initially classified the goods as limestone based on a GSI test report. However, the appellate tribunal, after hearing both sides, analyzed the technical aspects and definitions of marble and limestone. The tribunal noted that the test report mentioned the goods could be used as commercial marble due to their properties, even though they were classified as limestone. The tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the technical definitions and properties of marble and limestone for accurate classification.

The tribunal examined various technical definitions of marble and limestone from sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Indian Bureau of Mines. It highlighted the distinctions between the two, such as the re-crystallization process and the ability to take a good polish, which are essential properties of marble. The tribunal also considered the IS standards and definitions to determine the classification of the imported goods accurately. Additionally, the tribunal referred to previous decisions to support its conclusion that once goods are capable of being used as marble, they cannot be classified as limestone.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revenue's appeal. The tribunal emphasized the importance of accurately classifying goods based on their technical properties and definitions to ensure the correct duty clearance against a DEEC license. The judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases where the classification of goods as marble or limestone is disputed, emphasizing the need to consider technical aspects and properties for accurate classification.