Nickel Hydroxide with Additives Classifiable as Miscellaneous Chemical Product, Not Inorganic Chemical: CESTAT [Read Order]

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Nickel Hydroxide powder with additives like cobalt and graphite is classifiable as a miscellaneous chemical product under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 3824 and not as an inorganic chemical under CTH 2825.

HBL Power Systems Ltd., the appellant, is engaged in the manufacture of nickel-cadmium batteries. To produce these batteries, the company imported Nickel Hydroxide powder with additives from various countries and classified the product under CTH 2825 4000, which covers “Nickel Oxides and Hydroxides.”

The classification has been consistently accepted by the customs department since 2003. After the introduction of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012, which provided exemption from basic customs duty for goods falling under this heading, the appellant claimed the exemption for its imports.

The department disputed the classification, arguing that the imported product was not a pure chemical compound but a formulated mixture intended for a specific use in batteries. The department held that it should be classified under CTH 3824 9090 as a miscellaneous chemical product. A show cause notice was issued, and after the personal hearing, the Commissioner confirmed the demand, disallowed the exemption, and imposed penalties. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the CESTAT.

The UAE Tax Law Is Evolving — Stay Ahead Before Clients Find Someone Who Already Is, Click Here

The appellant argued that the product description was factually correct in all Bills of Entry and that similar classification had been accepted by the department for over a decade. The appellant submitted that the classification issue involved the interpretation of tariff headings and did not involve any intent to mislead. They also pointed out that the product was being classified similarly by global suppliers.

The revenue argued that Chapter 28 only includes chemically defined compounds and that mixtures with additives fall outside its scope. The department asserted that the product was not eligible for exemption and that the appellant had misclassified the goods to wrongfully avail benefits under the customs notification.

The two-member bench comprising P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the imported product was a mixture designed for specific industrial use and could not be treated as a chemically defined compound under Chapter 28. The tribunal followed its earlier decision in SAFT India Pvt. Ltd., which involved similar goods and concluded that the correct classification was under CTH 3824 9090.

The tribunal also found that the appellant had consistently used the earlier classification in good faith and there was no evidence of mala fide intention. It was observed that the dispute arose from the interpretation of the tariff and exemption notifications. While upholding the classification and confirming the demand for the normal period, the tribunal set aside the penalty and the invocation of the extended period of limitation.

The tribunal held that the appellant was not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus but was not liable for penalties or extended period demand. The appeal was partly allowed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates