CEMENTO CORPORATION LTD. versus COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE

CEMENTO CORPORATION LTD. versus COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE

Once it is admitted that Lympo is a cement substitute, and not 'cement' or a specific variety thereof, it cannot be classified under Tariff Item 23(1) or (2) but falls under Tariff Item 68 as residuary, especially as later statutory changes separately classified Lympo under different headings further confirming the distinction.

Parties
Appellant: Cemento Corporation Ltd.; Respondent: Collector Central Excise
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Dated 14.9.1993 of the Central Excise Customs and Gold (control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Central Excise Classification, Classification of Products for Excise Duty, Cement Substitutes, Tariff Interpretation
Taxation Excise Law Central Excise Classification Classification of Products for Excise Duty Cement Substitutes Tariff Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cemento Corporation Ltd.

Appellant

Collector Central Excise

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Dated 14.9.1993 of the Central Excise Customs and Gold (control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Lympo, a lime-pozzolana mixture, is classifiable as cement under Tariff Items 23(1) or 23(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, or under the residuary item 68

Ratio Decidendi

Once it is admitted that Lympo is a cement substitute, and not 'cement' or a specific variety thereof, it cannot be classified under Tariff Item 23(1) or (2) but falls under Tariff Item 68 as residuary, especially as later statutory changes separately classified Lympo under different headings further confirming the distinction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside the decision of the Tribunal;
  • Hold that Lympo is classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and not under 23(1) or 23(2);