Commissioner Of C. Ex. And Cus. vs Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. on 4 August, 2000

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Mumbai
Commissioner Of C. Ex. And Cus. vs Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. on 4 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001 (130) ELT 663 Tri Mumbai


Gowri Shankar, Member (T)

1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the Commissioner is the correctness of the classification claimed by the respondent of the ethyl alcohol manufactured by it. In the list effective from 1-3-1989 the respondent had claimed the classification of the alcohol under 2204.00 with the benefit of Notification 20/89, which exempted power alcohol from duty. Notice was issued proposing to classify the product under 3823.00. This heading classified among others residual products of chemical and allied industries. The Asstt. Collector found that the Jurisdictional Superintendent reported that ethyl alcohol manufactured by the respondent was suitable for use as fuel in spark ignition engines although it was not actually so used. He found that Heading 2204.00 was for ethyl alcohol suitable for use in spark ignition engines. He further found that Notification 20/89 exempted from duty power alcohol and did not contain any condition as to suitability of use of such alcohol as fuel not spark ignition engine. He therefore allowed the appeal. On an appeal, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed this order.

2. The appeal does not question the finding of the Asstt. Collector and the Collector (Appeals) that the goods having been found to be suitable for use as fuel in spark ignition engine classification under 2204, and consequent benefit of the notification cannot be denied. The ground in the appeal is that Heading 2204.00 has been deleted from the tariff from 1-3-1989. Therefore from this date to 19-3-1990, from which date it was reintroduced, goods would not have been classifiable under 2204.00 and would be found to be classifiable under Heading 38.23.

3. We are not able to accept either of these contentions. The Heading 2204.00 was deleted by the Finance Act, 1989, which came into effect on 13-5-1989. From that date also the respondent was required to file another classification list as provided by the provisions of Rule 173C. In any event the classification list earlier filed would cease to be effective as the tariff heading itself has been deleted. Therefore, for the period covered by the classification list, the Collector (Appeals) order not being questioned, has to be confirmed. That is the only period we are concerned with.

4. Even otherwise we are not able to see how Heading 38.23 applies. Note 1A to Chapter 38 excludes from its scope separate chemical defined compound otherwise specified in that note. It is not (sic) found that ethyl alcohol is separate defined compound or otherwise specified. This chapter will not apply.

5. We therefore see no reason to interfere and dismiss the appeal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *