9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (10) TMI 99 - SC - Central ExciseBy the impugned order the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that Precipitated Calcium Carbonate is classifiable under Heading 2836.90 and not under Heading 2505.90, as claimed by the assessee. - assessee has strenuously urged that the Tribunal has erred on facts and in law in relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Gulshan Sugar and Chemical Works, reported as 2005 (179) E.L.T. A205 (S.C.) . inasmuch as the process involved in the manufacture of assessee s final product, viz. Precipitated Chalk is different from Precipitated Calcium Carbonate . However, on a query by us, learned counsel conceded that the chemical composition of both the said end products is same. - We find that such a plea was neither urged before the Tribunal nor has it been raised in the present appeal.- Thus, no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal, warranting our interference.
Issues: Classification of "Precipitated Calcium Carbonate" under Heading 2836.90 or Heading 2505.90
In this case, the Supreme Court heard an appeal under Section 35-L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the classification of "Precipitated Calcium Carbonate." The Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal had classified the product under Heading 2836.90 instead of Heading 2505.90 as claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was based on a previous judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gulshan Sugar and Chemical Works. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in relying on the previous judgment as the process for manufacturing their product, "Precipitated Chalk," was different from "Precipitated Calcium Carbonate." However, it was acknowledged that the chemical composition of both products was the same. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant did not raise this argument before the Tribunal or in the current appeal. The Court, in agreement with its previous decision, found no fault with the Tribunal's order and dismissed the appeal for lacking merit, without any costs imposed.
|
