- (1.) The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal, in the judgments and orders under appeal, held that quicklime and hydrated lime were not exigible to excise duty. The conclusion was based upon Ch. Note 2 of Ch. 25 of the central Excise Tariff as it read at the relevant time. Ch. 25 covered salt, sulphur, clay and stone, plastering materials, lime and cement. Ch. Note 2 read thus: "2.Headings Nos. 25. 01, 25. 03 and 25. 05 cover only products which have been washed (even with chemical substances, eliminating the 657 impurities without changing the structure of the product) , crushed, grounded, powdered, levitated, sifted, screened, or concentrated by a flotation, magnetic separation or other mechanical or physical processes (except crystallisation) , but not products that have been roasted, calcined or obtained by mixing. "
(2.) It is not in dispute that the quicklime and hydrated lime is obtained by calcination. Apparently, therefore, it would fall outside the scope of the entries in Ch. 25. But learned counsel for the Revenue adopted as his b argument the conclusions of the Collector of Customs and central Excise in the order she passed on 3/1/1991 in the case of Nuchem Industries (P) Ltd. , thus: "The Ch. Note 2 referred to by the party excluded products which are 'roasted, calcined etc. ' The note does not exclude products which are obtained as a result of roasting of certain products. To be precise the Ch. note would exclude calcium oxide which is roasted to obtain the form which would be classifiable under Heading 28.25. "it has been difficult for us to comprehend precisely what the Collector intended to say, nor could the counsel enlighten us.
(3.) In any event, where technical processes are concerned, the findings of the tribunal should, ordinarily, not be disturbed, and in these cases we find no reason to do so.;