1999 (8) TMI 222 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of calcined bauxite under Tariff Heading (TH) 26.06 vs. TH 68.07.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification Dispute:
The appeal concerns the classification of calcined bauxite, with the Appellants arguing for classification under TH 26.06 as "Aluminium Ores and Concentrates." The lower authority, however, classified the product under TH 68.07 for "all other articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or similar materials not elsewhere specified or included."

2. Process of Manufacture:
The process of manufacturing calcined bauxite involves mining bauxite, processing it in a chaft furnace at high temperatures using coke, and subsequently calcining it to harden the amery stone present in it. The resulting lumps are crushed and graded to obtain amery grain powder.

3. Reasoning of Lower Authority:
The lower authority justified the classification under TH 68.07 by asserting that calcined bauxite is neither aluminium ore nor concentrate. They relied on a Board's Circular and the process of manufacture provided by the Appellants to support their decision.

4. Appellant's Argument:
The Appellant contended that calcination of bauxite does not change its classification as an ore of aluminium. They referenced the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System Nomenclature (HSN) to support their claim that even if calcined bauxite is not used in metallurgy but for other purposes like abrasives, it should still be classified under TH 26.06.

5. Opposing View:
The Respondent supported the lower authority's decision, reiterating that the product should be classified under TH 68.07 based on the manufacturing process and the Circular's classification of similar products.

6. Judgment and Analysis:
The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant, emphasizing the high persuasive value of the Explanatory Notes to the HSN in determining classification. They found that calcined bauxite, intended for uses like abrasives, falls under TH 26.06. The Tribunal dismissed the lower authority's classification as lapping abrasive powder, noting the absence of a mixture in the present case. Consequently, the reliance on the Circular was deemed irrelevant, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the Appellants with consequential relief.