Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (8) TMI 481 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Classification of Condom Lubricants and Surface Active Antiform Compound under the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the Revenue challenged the order of the CCE (Appeals) regarding the classification of Condom Lubricants and Surface Active Antiform Compound under Heading 2710.90 and 3402.90 respectively, while the Revenue contended for classification under Heading 3910.00. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of establishing the nature of the entities before classification. The test report for Condom Lubricants described it as a mixture of polyorganics silicone compounds, siloxanes, and silanols, not in silicone primary form. Similarly, the report for Surface Active Antiform Compound identified it as a preparation containing siloxanes, silanols, silica, and other additives, not in silicone primary form or OSA. The intended use of the entities as lubricant treatment compounds in manufacturing latex condoms and textile fabrics was highlighted. The Chief Chemists' reports confirmed that the products were not petroleum-based or OSA, leading to the rejection of classification under 2710.90 and 3402.90. Regarding classification under Chapter 39, even if the products satisfied Note 6, they did not meet the definition of "plastic" as per Note 1, and since they were not silicone in primary form, classification under Heading 3910 was deemed inappropriate. The Tribunal concluded that the entities, being preparations of the chemical industry, should be classified under Chapter 3403 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 as Lubricants preparations, considering the HSN notes. As the lower authorities did not consider classification under 3405 and the respondents had no opportunity to address classification under 3403, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders and remitted the matter for re-determination of classification and duty demands as per the law. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the original authorities for further proceedings.
|