1998 (4) TMI 267 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of Lead Sub-Oxide (Grey) under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Whether under sub-heading 2824.00 or 3823.00

The central issue in this case was the classification of Lead Sub-Oxide (Grey) manufactured by the appellant firm for use in the production of Electric Accumulator. The dispute revolved around whether the product should be classified under sub-heading 2824.00 or sub-heading 3823.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant's classification list was initially approved under 2824.00, but later, a show cause notice was issued proposing a change to 3823.00, leading to a series of legal proceedings.

The appellant argued that the product should be classified under 2824.00, contending that the term "Lead Oxides" in this entry covers various types of oxides, including partially oxidized lead like the Grey Lead Oxide they produce. They highlighted that Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 38 excludes sub-oxides of lead from 3823.00, emphasizing the specificity of the entry and the interpretative rules favoring more specific descriptions over general ones.

In contrast, the respondent argued that the product did not meet the criteria for classification under 2824.00, which specifically refers to fully oxidized compounds. They relied on Chapter 28 Note (1) to support their position that the entry applies to chemically defined compounds. Additionally, they referenced the HSN Explanatory Note and a Supreme Court judgment to assert that the Grey Oxide obtained by controlled oxidation of pure lead falls under 3823.00.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal held that the Lead Sub Oxide (Grey) should be classified under Chapter 3823.00. They found that the product did not meet the criteria for classification under 2824.00 as it was not a fully oxidized compound and contained free lead, making it distinct from chemically defined compounds. The Tribunal also emphasized the binding nature of HSN Explanatory Notes and the relevance of the specific manufacturing process in determining classification, ultimately rejecting the appeal and upholding the classification under 3823.00.