Case Law Details
Commissioner of Customs Vs ITC Ltd (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court dismissed civil appeals filed by the Revenue in a customs classification dispute concerning imported “Quicklime.” The Court noted that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had relied upon its earlier decision in M/s Viraj Profiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, which had already been upheld by the Supreme Court through order dated 01.04.2024 in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Ltd. The Supreme Court recorded the submission of the Revenue’s counsel that the issue stood settled against the department. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed and pending applications were disposed of. Delay in filing was condoned.
The underlying dispute before CESTAT Kolkata concerned classification of imported “PCC Lime 0/20MM (Quicklime)(Pulp Conversion Chemical)” declared under Customs Tariff Item (CTH) 2522 1000. The customs authorities had instead classified the goods under CTH 2825 9090 on the basis that the goods were calcined products and treated as separately defined chemical compounds.
CESTAT referred extensively to earlier decisions, including M/s JSW Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin and M/s Viraj Profiles Ltd. The Tribunal examined Chapter 25 and Chapter 28 of the Customs Tariff along with HSN explanatory notes. It noted that Chapter Heading 2522 specifically covers “Quicklime,” while Heading 2825 applies only to calcium oxide and hydroxide in pure state. HSN explanatory notes under Heading 2825 state that calcium oxide of high purity, approximately 98% calcium oxide, falls within that heading, whereas quicklime and slaked lime remain excluded under Heading 2522.
The Tribunal observed that laboratory reports in the present case showed calcium oxide purity of about 92%, containing traces of iron, magnesium, manganese and silicious matter. Relying on HSN notes and earlier precedents, CESTAT held that quicklime with purity below 98% could not be classified under the residuary Heading 2825 9090. It further observed that Heading 2522 1000 specifically covered quicklime, and a specific tariff entry should prevail over a residuary entry.
CESTAT also distinguished earlier authorities relied upon by the Revenue, including decisions rendered under the Central Excise Tariff before alignment with the HSN and advance rulings issued in different factual contexts. Following the ratio laid down in earlier Tribunal decisions, it concluded that imported quicklime with calcium oxide purity below 98% was correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 2522 10 00.
The Tribunal therefore set aside the impugned orders passed by the lower authorities and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, thereby affirming the settled position that quicklime with purity below 98% calcium oxide falls under CTH 2522 10 00 and not under the residuary classification in Heading 2825 90 90.
Read CESTAT Order in this case:- ITC Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Kolkata)
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) while passing the impugned order, inter alia, relied on its earlier decision in M/s. Viraj Profiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai, which has been upheld by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2024, reported as “Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Ltd.” 2024 (388) E.L.T. 673 (SC) :2024 SCC OnLine SC 3670, and therefore, the issue stands settled against the Revenue.
3. In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
5. Delay condoned.
6. The Civil Appeals are dismissed in terms of the Signed Order.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Author Bio
