'Expanded Fire Clay' Qualifies As Ceramic Product Under Chapter 69 If Fired After Shaping: CESTAT Bangalore

On 24 March, the Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that “Expanded Fire Clay Grog” is correctly classifiable as a ceramic product under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 6902.

A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed the appeal filed by Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the product satisfies the essential requirement for classification under Chapter 69, namely: “fired after shaping.”

The Tribunal observed:

“Therefore, accepting the Chemical Examiner's report based on the description of the products, classification of the impugned product is upheld under CTH 6902 9010.”

The dispute arose when the Department reclassified the imported goods from CTH 6902 to CTH 6806 based on audit findings and demanded differential duty of over Rs. 15 lakh along with interest and penalty.

Saint-Gobain contended that the product was a ceramic material shaped into pellets and then fired at a high temperature, and was therefore correctly declared.

The Tribunal examined technical literature and certification from the British Ceramic Confederation, which confirmed that the product is wholly ceramic and is shaped prior to firing. It also relied on the Chemical Examiner's report, which described the product as “ceramic material… fired after shaping.”

Rejecting the Revenue's stand, the Tribunal concluded that there was no substantive evidence to support classification under CTH 6806 except a single invoice reference. It further held that the Commissioner erred in discarding the Chemical Examiner's report without valid justification.

Quoting Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal reiterated:

“Test Report of the Chemical Examiner… unless demonstrated to be erroneous, cannot be lightly brushed aside.”

On limitation, the Tribunal held that there was no suppression or misdeclaration by the appellant, as the Bills of Entry clearly described the goods and their classification. Therefore, invocation of the extended period of limitation was unsustainable.

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the demand and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

Appearance for the Appellant: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate

Appearance for the Respondent: Shri M. Sreekanth, Authorized Representative