Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. Therefore, keeping in view the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Star Industries Vs CC (Imports), Raigad (supra), when the goods are subjected to a similar activity and therefore, denied exemption in India and charged to Central Excise duty, similar goods having undergone similar processes when imorted would also be not entitled to CVD exemption. We also find force in the citations of the learned AR in the case of Beach Minerals Company Vs CC, Tuticorin [2023 (9) CENTAX 148 (Tri- Mad)]. In this case, it was the case of the department that the appellants have not undertaken any beneficiation process to make the mined sand into C/21916/2014, C/21338/2015, C/30455 & 31110/2016 processed/upgraded Ilmenite. The Tribunal relied on the definition of the word 'beneficiation' under Rule 3(d) of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, as under.

"12. The major objection but forward by the Department is that the appellants have not undertaken any beneficiation process to make the mined sand into processed/upgraded Ilmenite. The appellant has produced the flow chart showing the various processes undertaken before the goods are exported. It may be true that the mine sand has not undergone any chemical treatment or roasting. It has to be seen that the said flow chart has been approved by the Mining Department as well as the Atomic Energy. Further in the Tariff heading reproduced above, the word "beneficiation" has not been explained. Rule 3(d) of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 defines "beneficiation". The said rule reads as under:

C/21916/2014, C/21338/2015, C/30455 & 31110/2016

15. Our view is supported by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of VV Minerals Vs. Commissioner of Customs (supra). The Tribunal analyzed the issue in detail and observed as under:

"11. We have also seen the sample of both unprocessed and the final product i.e. upgraded Ilmenite and perused the certificate dated 1-3-2013 issued by the Department of Geology & Mines, Government of Tamil Nadu which clearly confirms that appellants are licensed by the Government of Tamil Nadu to export processed/upgraded Ilmenite. Both adjudicating authority and the LAA relied the website literature of another company i.e. Kerala Minerals Ltd. and based their decision only on the issue of roasting and acid wash or chemical treatment. The department also contends that beneficiated ore should be high % of TiO2 which is 'Synthetic Rutile'. We find that the classification of 'Rutile' is separately classified under CH 2614 00 31. Therefore, the department's contention for classifying under Chapter 2614 00 10 is not based on valid reasons and relying another firm's website details cannot be taken as authentic evidence. It might be the process undertaken by the said company.

3. Hence it is clarified that the levy of excise duty is attracted only in cases where the product meets the definition of concentrate as per HSN Notes, that is, 'ores which have had part or all of the foreign matter removed by special treatments either because such foreign matter may hamper subsequent metallurgical operations or with a view to economical transport'."

The above clarification covers the appellant's export product which is covered under 2614. The above circular and the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court decisions (supra) are squarely applicable to the present case. The department relying on the Tribunal decision in the case of Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. (supra) is on the manufacture and excisability of the product and not on beneficiation or classification. The same is not applicable to the present case as the issue here is on charging export duty on Ilmenite Upgraded (beneficiated). The definition of "beneficiation" given in Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 is more authentic than the website literature relied by department. Both Apex Court decision and High Court decision on 'beneficiation' are applicable to the present case. While classifying the goods whether for import or export the descriptions used in the chapter headings and sub-headings are to be literally applied and no other meaning or assumption can be made. The sub-heading 2614 00 20 only describes Ilmenite upgraded (beneficiated Ilmenite) without any specification. As evident from the findings of LAA the Revenue's trying to put the "Synthetic Rutile" under the above heading is incorrect and not acceptable. Therefore, by respectfully following the Apex Court and High Court decisions referred above, we are of the considered view that the product "Ilmenite" exported by the appellant is rightly classifiable under CH 2614 00 20 of CTH as "Ilmenite upgraded (Beneficiated Ilmenite) and chargeable to appropriate export duty and not under 2614 00 10 of CTH.