Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Custom Duty

Quick Lime Held Classifiable Under CTH 2522, Duty Demand Set Aside: CESTAT Kolkata

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 9279
Case Name
Jindal Stainless Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Kolkata)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement


Jindal Stainless Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Kolkata)

The appeal before the CESTAT Kolkata concerned the classification of imported Quick Lime. The appellant had imported 12 consignments between October 2014 and August 2015 and classified them under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 2522 1000 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Nearly four years later, the Department issued a Show Cause Notice contending that the goods were classifiable under CTH 2825, attracting a higher rate of customs duty. Before issuance of the Show Cause Notice, the appellant paid the demanded customs duty and interest under protest. Thereafter, the appellant contested the proposed classification, contending that the imported product was correctly classifiable under CTH 2522 1000. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, appropriated the duty and interest already paid, and imposed penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant submitted that the issue was no longer res integra. It relied upon the Delhi Bench decision in Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Patparganj, wherein Quick Lime was held classifiable under Chapter 25. It also relied upon the Mumbai Bench decision in Viraj Profiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, which similarly held that Quick Lime was classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 2522 10 00. The appellant further pointed out that the Revenue’s appeal against the Mumbai Bench decision had been dismissed by the Supreme Court, which declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s order. The appellant also requested refund of the customs duty and interest paid during investigation together with interest, relying on Indore Treasure Market City Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and C.Ex., Indore and Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, C.G.S.T., Noida, wherein interest at the rate of 12% had been directed on refunds of amounts deposited during investigation. The Revenue submitted that the issue was no longer res integra.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 19,653

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.