1999 (5) TMI 187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ]. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur. 2. In the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise held that the Plaster of Paris manufactured by the respondents was not classifiable under Heading 25.05 of the Central Excise Tariff (in short, CET), prior to 20-3-1990. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en cooled. The Collector has in the impugned order, after taking into consideration Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 25, held that the product in question is not classifiable under Heading 25.05. We find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Madhusudan Ceramics v. C.C.E. - [1991 (53) E.L.T. 90]. In this case the Tribunal held as under 6. The Chapter Note 2 of Chapter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... luding plasters specially prepared for use in density. 12% Thus by reading the Note 2, it is clear that it does not cover products that have been roasted, calcined or obtained by mixing. Chapter 25.05 includes plasters with a basis of calcium sulphate but such plasters which are obtained by roasting, calcination or obtained by mixing are excluded by the Note 2. In this case, admi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X