Viraj Profiles Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Mumbai)
The appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai concerned the classification of imported quicklime by Viraj Profiles Ltd. During the period from 12.09.2014 to 04.06.2018, the appellant imported quicklime under Customs Tariff Item (CTH) 2522 10 00, claiming exemption benefits under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 and Notification No. 01/2017-Integrated Tax dated 28.06.2017. The department, while examining one Bill of Entry, took the view that the imported product was a calcined product of limestone falling outside Chapter 25 by virtue of Chapter Note 1 and proposed classification under CTH 2825 90 90, resulting in higher customs duties. Show cause proceedings were initiated under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 for recovery of differential duty, together with interest, confiscation under Section 111(m), and penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for the normal period and imposed penalty under Section 112(a). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, leading to the present appeals.
Read SC Judgment in this case: SC Dismissed Revenue Appeal on Quicklime Classification Under CTH 2522
The appellant submitted that it had imported the same product for over twenty years under CTH 2522 10 00 and that the imported quicklime, containing approximately 91%–95% calcium oxide, was used in steel manufacturing for removal of impurities. It argued that the product was obtained only by calcination of limestone and underwent no further processing. Relying on Tribunal decisions in Bhadradri Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd., the appellant contended that CTH 2825 covers only calcium oxide of approximately 98% purity or more, whereas the imported goods contained lower calcium oxide content and therefore remained classifiable as quicklime under Chapter 25. The appellant also argued that reliance on BIS Standard IS:1540-1 (1980) was misplaced because that standard did not cover lime for the metallurgical industry. It further submitted that the Advance Ruling in Lhoist India was binding only on the parties to that ruling under Section 28J of the Customs Act.
