2009 (1) TMI 156 - AT - Central Excise

Commissioner holding classification of goods imported as limestones and not rough marble blocks and holding that goods fall under Tariff SH 2515.20 and not covered by the DEEC licence produced - held that limestone after metamorphosis can be considered as marble if, they satisfy certain physical properties like capability or polish report of GSI merely confirms that the imported goods are calcium stone without elaborating as to whether they have undergone the changes to treat them as marble or not - test report, in our opinion is not conclusive, in this respect - goods whether classifiable as claimed by the Department under the category of Ecaussine and other calcareous monumental or building stone, alabaster under Tariff SH 2515.20, not forthcoming in the report of the GSI - Order of the Commissioner is set aside goods classifiable as Marble

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods as limestone or marble, Duty liability, Validity of DEEC licence

The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order by the Commissioner, where the goods imported by the appellant were classified as limestones instead of rough marble blocks as claimed. The Commissioner held that the goods fell under Tariff sub-heading 2515.20 and were not covered by the DEEC licence, leading to a demand for duty payment and a penalty imposition. The appellant had initially claimed the goods as Rough Marble Blocks under Tariff 2515.12. Samples were sent for testing, with conflicting opinions from the Mines and Geology Department, Rajasthan. The matter was referred to the Geological Survey of India (GSI), whose report classified the goods as fossiliferous limestone. The appellant argued that previous Tribunal decisions favored importers in similar cases. The Departmental Representative contended that the GSI report clearly identified the goods as limestone, citing a Supreme Court case differentiating between limestone and marble.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions from both sides, referencing previous decisions. It highlighted the need for imported goods to fall under the specific category of "Ecaussine and other calcareous monumental or building stone, alabaster" to be classified under Tariff sub-heading 2515.20. The Tribunal noted that the reports did not definitively place the goods in this category, using terms like marble and limestone interchangeably. It emphasized that the goods, although rough, were capable of being polished, supporting a classification as marble. The GSI report did not conclusively determine if the goods had transformed into marble, as required by the guidelines set by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal concluded that the GSI report lacked clarity on this crucial aspect, and the goods did not distinctly fit the criteria for classification under Tariff sub-heading 2515.20. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the classification of imported goods as limestone or marble, the liability for duty payment, and the validity of the DEEC licence. The Tribunal scrutinized the testing reports, previous decisions, and legal guidelines to determine the appropriate classification under the relevant Tariff sub-heading. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the GSI report did not definitively support the Department's claim, leading to the decision to allow the appeal and set aside the Commissioner's order.