9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty and additional duty of customs to coke containing not more than 0.035% phosphorous. 2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector has concluded that the goods that the appellant imported was not coke but were semi coke and hence not entitled to the exemption. 3. The contention of the appellant has been and continues to be, that there is no distinction in terms of technical characteristic or chemical between coke and semi coke. The distinction is only commercial. The substance imported by the appellant did satisfy the condition in the notification with regard to phosphorous contents and therefore the exemption ought to have been granted. The McGraw Hill Dictionary of Science and Technology and Condensed Chemical Dictionary d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at that the imported material was coke because it contains volatile matter substantially higher than 4%; it was 4.19%. There is however little dispute about the general proposition that the lower the distillation temperature the greater the proportion of volatile matter. This would be so because at higher temperature volatile matter consisting of hydrogen and oxygen would be burnt. 5. The departmental representative produces an extract from publication named the Technology of Low Temperature Carbonization by Frank M. Gentry which he has downloaded from the site www.rexresearch.com. This gives various results of distillation of coke at various temperatures. In Chapter IV says that the percentage of volatile matter ranges from the low tempe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment of goods. By classifying the goods under heading 2704 this object would have been achieved but for the exemption notification. The appellant would not have been aggrieved, nor the department come to any wrong assessment by classifying the goods under heading 27.04, even if they would not be sure that the imported material was coke or semi coke. 7. The position however is different in the case of an exemption. If, the exemption were both for coke or semi coke under heading 27.04 and did not include lignite which is also classifiable under heading 27.04, the appellant would have been entitled to exemption, if it could have been shown that the product was either coke or semi coke. However, the exemption consideration is only for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
