Supreme Court of India
Toshiba Anand Batteries Ltd. Anand ... vs Collector Of Customs, Cochin on 20 December, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990 SCR, SUPL. (3) 614 1992 SCC SUPL. (1) 38, AIRONLINE 1992 SC 163
Bench: N.M. Kasliwal, S.C. Agrawal
PETITIONER:
TOSHIBA ANAND BATTERIES LTD. ANAND HOUSE,COCHIN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/12/1990
BENCH:
RANGNATHAN, S.
BENCH:
RANGNATHAN, S.
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1990 SCR Supl. (3) 614 1992 SCC Supl. (1) 38
JT 1991 (1) 14 1990 SCALE (2)1293
ACT:
Customs Tariff Act, 1975: Item Nos. 25.01/32 and
28.01/58-Battery grade Manganese dioxide--Classification for
custom duty--Not he ore contents in its crude form but ore
contents in the form purified or upgraded by electrolysis.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant-assessee in the appeals is a manufacturer
of dry patteries. For this it imports electrolytic manganese
dioxide from abroad having a manganese dioxide content of
91%. Its claim is that customs duty is payable on this item
under heading 25.01/32(3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975
whereas the revenue authority says that the tem imported
falls under heading 28.01/58. The rate of duty under both
the headings is the same, but if the item is classified
under 28.01/58 the assessee would be liable to pay counter-
vailing duty as well.
The Assistant Collector's findings that Note 1 for the
interpretation of items under Chapter 25, clearly exclude
the goods imported by the appellant, were revised by the
Collector (Appeals), but confirmed the Tribunal, holding
that various grades of manganese dioxide exist and only few
are suitable for use as battery grade, that the item import-
ed by the appellant is Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide of
very high purity and this chemically pure Manganese Dioxide
would qualify for assessment correctly under heading
28.01/58(1), of the Tariff with Countervailing duty under
Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.
On the question, under which of the two headings in the
first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 the goods in
question fall for the purposes of levy of duty:
Dismissing the appeals, the Court,
HELD: 1. In view of Note 1 to Chapter 25, Item (3) under
heading 25.01/32 has to be understood, unless the context
requires otherwise to refer to the goods described therein
either in their crude state or in a
615
purified state provided the processes of purification em-
ployed are only mechanical or physical processes, particu-
larly those mentioned in the said note. [619G]
In the instant case, this raises two questions: (1)
whether battery grade manganese dioxide is available in the
crude form, and (ii) if the goods in question represent
manganese dioxide in a purified form, whether the processes
applied for the purification or refinement are the processes
permissible under note 1. The evidence on record compels an
answer to each of the questions against the appellant.
[619H]
2. Although the product imported by the appellant is
battery grade manganese dioxide, it does not fail under
heading 25.01/32 because it is not the ore in its crude form
but is the ore in a form purified or upgraded by
electrolysis. Once the applicability of chapter 25 is out
for this reason, the only item that can cover the goods in
question is heading 28.01/58, since there is no dispute that
the item in question is a chemical product or chemical
compound. [621C-D]
3. The manganese dioxide imported by the appellant is
electrolytic manganese dioxide which is manufactured from
the ore by a process of electrolysis. [620C]
4. Purification or upgradation of the manganese dioxide
content of crude ore by the process of electrolysis, which
is a chemical and not a mechanical or physical process takes
it outside the purview of item 25.01/32. [620D]
JUDGMENT: