Relief to ITC Limited: CESTAT Rules Quicklime with 92% Purity is Classifiable as Quicklime, Not as Other Inorganic Chemicals [Read Order]
CESTAT ruled in favour of ITC Limited, holding that quicklime with 92% purity is classifiable as quicklime under Heading 2522, not as other inorganic chemicals under Heading 2825.
![Relief to ITC Limited: CESTAT Rules Quicklime with 92% Purity is Classifiable as Quicklime, Not as Other Inorganic Chemicals [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/23/2053183-quicklime-cestat-taxscan.webp "Relief to ITC Limited: CESTAT Rules Quicklime with 92% Purity is Classifiable as Quicklime, Not as Other Inorganic Chemicals [Read Order]")
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled in favour of ITC Limited, holding that quicklime with 92% purity should be classified under the tariff heading for "Quicklime" and not under "Other Inorganic Chemicals."
ITC Limited, the appellant, had imported quicklime for use in its Paperboards and Specialty Papers Division. The company declared the product under tariff heading 2522 10 00, which specifically covers quicklime. The Customs Department reclassified the goods under tariff heading 2825 90 90, a residuary category under inorganic chemicals, on the basis of lab test results showing that the imported product was chemically processed and contained around 92% calcium oxide.
The department passed assessment orders under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, which were later upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant approached the CESTAT and challenged the reclassification of the product.
Step by Step Guidance for Tax Audit & E-filing, Click Here
The appellant's counsel argued that the goods were rightly classifiable as quicklime, as they were not pure calcium oxide and contained only 92% CaO. They relied on the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) notes, which distinguish quicklime from chemically pure compounds. The counsel cited earlier Tribunal rulings, including JSW Steel Ltd. and Viraj Profiles Ltd., where similar products were held to fall under heading 2522.
The revenue’s representative argued that since the product was obtained through calcination and its chemical characteristics were confirmed through test reports, it was properly classifiable under heading 2825. He contended that the presence of chemical compounds and the product’s refined nature supported its classification as an inorganic chemical.
The two-member bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) examined previous decisions of co-ordinate benches and referred to the HSN explanatory notes. It concluded that quicklime with less than 98% purity, such as the 92% purity product imported by ITC, does not qualify for classification under heading 2825. The tribunal reasoned that the product, being impure and not chemically refined to the required standard, fits the specific tariff entry for quicklime under heading 2522.
Get a Complete Kit of Essential Books for Daily Practice, Click Here
The tribunal found that the revenue’s reliance on a residuary category was not justified when a specific heading was available. It held that the classification must follow the interpretative rules that give preference to specific descriptions over general ones. The tribunal set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities.
The tribunal allowed the appeal and ruled that the imported product is classifiable under heading 2522 10 00 for quicklime. ITC Limited was granted consequential relief in accordance with the law.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
