http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1836 of 2001

PETITIONER: M/s. H.P.L. Chemicals Limited

RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/04/2006

BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T with C.A. Nos.7500-7501 of  2004

Bhan, J.

       These appeals pertain to the same issue.  For  the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from  Civil Appeal No.1836 of 2001.    

The assessee-appellant (for short "the  appellant") being aggrieved by the final order  No.526/2000/C dated 7.12.2000 passed by the Central  Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New  Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") in Appeal  No.E/2154/2000-C has filed the present appeal under  Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for  short "the Act").  The Tribunal by the impugned  order has set aside the order of the Commissioner  (Appeals) classifying ’Denatured Salt’ under the  Chapter Heading 25.01 and held that ’Denatured  Salt’ is classifiable under the Chapter Heading  No.38.24 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985  (for short "the Tariff Act").

FACTS

       Appellant is a limited company incorporated  under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the  manufacture of Hydrazine falling under the Chapter  Heading No.28.25 of the Tariff Act.  Appellant,  during the course of manufacture of the final  product produces residuary by-product, i.e.,  ’Denatured Salt’.  Appellant filed classification  list claiming classification of the said product  under the Heading No. 25.01 carrying ’Nil’ rate of  duty.  

Divisional Preventive Officers of the Central  Excise visited the plant of the appellant and  observed that the raw materials used by the  appellant are Urea, Caustic Soda (Sodium Hydroxide)  and Chlorine Gas.  The process of manufacture  followed by the appellant, as stated in the show  cause notice based on the report of the prevent  staff is as under: Caustic Soda and Chlorine Gas  are reacted in a closed tank and transferred to  another tank.  In the said other tank Urea is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

mixed.  The mixture is then heated upto 100  centigrade with the help of steam.  Chemical  reaction starts in the tank and on completion of  it, Hydrazine in liquid form gets generated.  It is  removed to another tank through pumps.  From this  tank, the materials in limited quantities are taken  to evaporator tank where Hydrazine evaporates along  with water and passes through a condenser and is  collected.  The remaining material in the  evaporator tank is taken into centrifuge. In the  centrifuge, out of the remaining materials, solids  and liquids are separated.  The liquid form  centrifuge is again passed through the evaporator  tank and, in turn, through condenser to collect  Hydrazine.  This process is continued for all  remaining liquids and is a continuous process for  further retrieval of Hydrazine.  The residue solid  which remains in the centrifuge is taken out from  its bottom and it is in the form of white  crystalline powder and which is sold by the  appellant as Denatured Salt.  It is this product  whose classification is in dispute in the present  case.

On the basis of the report submitted by the  Preventive staff, the Deputy Commissioner of  Central Excise,  Chandigarh issued two show cause notices dated  28.2.1997 and 12.3.1997 requiring the appellant to  show cause as to why :

(a)     Central Excise Duty amounting to  Rs.12,21,863/- should not be recovered under  Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (b)     Interest on the said duty be not recovered  under Section 11AB of the Act. (c)     Penalty should not be imposed under Section  11AC, Rules 9(2) and 173Q of the Central  Excise Rules, 1944. (d)     The appellant’s product should not be  classified under Chapter Heading No.38.23  against 25.01 as claimed by the Appellants.  

       Appellant in reply to the show cause notices  took a number of points, relevant ones of which  are: 1.      That in the common parlance the product in  dispute is described as Denatured Salt. 2.      That the end use of the product is also as  a replacement of the common salt. 3.      That the classification of a mixture is to  be decided according to the dominance of  the constituent. 4.      That Chemical Examiner report supports  that the product is a salt in denatured  form, i.e., impure and is not usable as  edible salt, because it contains sodium  carbonate which is not fit for human  consumption. 5.      That only those residual products are  classifiable under Heading No.38.24 which  are not elsewhere specified or included.   6.      That it is not necessary that sodium  chloride should be an input for the  manufacture of Denatured Salt.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

7.      That it is not the intention of the  legislature that first salt should be  produced and thereafter it should be  denatured because the legislation was  fully aware that impure/inedible salt is  available whether natural or through some  chemical process that is why it appear on  the HSN. 8.      That even six month’s period is not  available to the department for the  raising of the demand and the entire  demand is without the authority of law.  

       After considering the replies filed by the  appellant, the Deputy Commissioner of Central  Excise, Chandigarh decided both the said notices by  order in original dated 31.3.1999.  By the said  order the Deputy Commissioner held that the subject  product was correctly classifiable under Heading  No. 38.23 (now 38.24) and he accordingly confirmed  the demand of duty and directed the appellant to  deposit the same along with the interest.  It was  further held that since there was no material on  record to indicate any suppression or mis-statement  of facts, a case for imposing the penalty was not  made out.  Against the order passed by the Deputy  Commissioner, the appellant filed an appeal before  the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and  Customs, Chandigarh, who allowed the same by order  in appeal dated 28.3.2000 by holding that the  subject product was classifiable under Heading  25.01 of the Tariff Act.   

       Aggrieved by the order passed by the  Commissioner (Appeals) the Revenue filed appeal  before the Tribunal which has been accepted by the  impugned order.  The Tribunal has set aside the  order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and  restored that of the adjudicating authority.  It  has been held that the subject product was  classifiable under Heading 38.24.   

The Tribunal has set aside the order of the  Commissioner (Appeals) primarily by recording the  following 4 findings:  

1.      Firstly, by referring to the titles of Section  V and Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff  the Tribual has held that in order to be  covered under Chapter  25, the goods must be  "mineral products" and that these must be salt,  sulphur, clay and stone, plastering materials,  lime and cement. 2.      That since the starting raw materials were not  classifiable under Chapter 25, the residue in  question cannot be a product covered by Chapter  25.   3.      That the Denatured Salt is a residue of the  chemical industry covered by Chapter 38.  It is  not elsewhere specified and provided. 4.      The residue in the instance case being from  Hydrazine, which is a chemical product would be  classifiable under Chapter 38.24 which was a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

specific heading for such products.

       Before adverting to the legal submissions  addressed by the learned counsels appearing for the  assessee and the Revenue, it would be relevant to  detail two important findings on fact recorded by  the authorities below.

       The Central Excise Authorities conducted market  enquiry through the Assistant Commissioner of  Central Excise, Chandigarh and the said enquiry  inter alia revealed as under:-

"The enquiry revealed that instant  goods were being consumed by the local  soap manufacturers as a filler in the  detergent and as a substitute of the  common salt.  As these manufacturers  of soaps had started purchasing the  goods only for a few years since the  noticee started producing and  supplying the same under the name of  ’denatured salt’ in their invoices,  the goods were known to the localized  consumers by this name only".

This fact has been recorded in the order in  original dated 31.3.1999 passed by the Deputy  Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh.   

The subject product was sent for examination by  the authorities to the Central Examiner of Central  Revenue Control Laboratories (in short "CRCL").   The CRCL found the subject product to be composed  of Sodium Chloride, Sodium Carbonate and other  inorganic salts.  It was opined by CRCL that the  subject product is to be taken as Sodium Chloride.   The report of CRCL as quoted in the order of the  Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28.3.2000 is  reproduced below:-

"being composed of Sodium  Chloride, Sodium Carbonate and other  inorganic salts"

Sodium Chloride Content                 -          53.6% Sodium Carbonate Content        -       19.6% Moisture at 100o C                      -       9.0% Is to be taken as "Sodium Chloride"

STATUTORY PROVISIONS:          Heading Nos. 25.01 and 38.23 of the Central  Excise Tariff are reproduced below for reference:-

"Head -ing  No. Sub- Heading

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

No. Description of Goods Rate  of  duty

25.0 1

2501.00 Salt (including table salt  and denatured salt) and  pure sodium chloride,  whether or not in aqueous  solution or containing  added anti-caking or free  flowing agents Nil

38.2 3 3823.00 Prepared binders for  foundry moulds or cores;  chemical products and  preparations of the  chemical or allied  industries (including  those consisting of  mixtures of natural  products), not elsewhere  specified or included;  residual products of the  chemical or allied  industries, not elsewhere  specified or included"  20%

       Heading 25.01 is a specific heading covering  "Denatured Salt" by name.  The fact that the  product in question is a "Denatured Salt" is clear  from the test report of the Chemical Examiner,  CRCL, who has found that the product comprises of  53.6% Sodium Chloride and "is to be taken as Sodium  Chloride".  This test report was obtained by the  Central Excise authorities themselves from their  own Chemical Examiner.  Even as per market and  trade enquiries conducted by the Central Excise  Department itself, it was found that the said goods  are being consumed by local soap manufacturers as a  filler in the detergent and as a substitute of the  common salt; these are purchased and sold as  "Denatured Salt" and are known to the local  consumers by this name only.  Thus, as per the said  market and trade enquiries conducted by the Central

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

Excise Department the goods in question are bought  and sold as "Denatured Salt".

       The explanatory notes below Heading No.25.01 in  the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding  System (in short "HSN") are reproduced below:-

       "This heading relates to sodium  chloride, commonly known as salt.   Salt is used for culinary purposes  (cooking salt, table salt), but it  also has many other uses and, if  necessary, may be denatured to render  it unfit for human consumption.                  The heading includes: (A)     Salt which is extracted from  underground: -       either by conventional mining  (rock salt), -       or by solution mining (water  is injected under pressure  into a layer of salt and  returns to the surface as  saturated brine).

       (B)     Evaporated salt: -       solar salt (sea salt) is  obtained by evaporation of  sea water by the sun; -       refined salt is obtained by  evaporation of saturated  brine.

       (C)     Sea water, brine and other saline  solutions. The heading also covers: (1)     Salt (e.g., table salt) which has  been slightly iodised, phosphated,  etc., or treated so that it will  remain dry. (2)     Salt to which anti-caking agents  or free-flowing agents have been  added. (3)     Salt which has been denatured by  any process. (4)     Residuary sodium chloride, in  particular that left after  chemical processing (e.g.,  electrolysis) or obtained as a by- product of the treatment of  certain ores."

As per HSN this Heading 25.01 relates to sodium  chloride, commonly known as salt.  Salt is not only  used for culinary purposes i.e., cooking salt,  table salt, but it also has many other uses and, if  necessary, may be denatured to render it unfit for  human consumption.  The heading includes Salt  extracted from underground, evaporated salt, sea  water salt obtained by evaporation of sea water by  the sun, refined salt obtained by evaporation of  saturated brine and other saline solutions and also  covers table salt, salt to which anti-caking agents

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

or free-flowing agents have been added, salt which  has been denatured by any process and also covers  residuary sodium chloride, in particular that left  after chemical processing or obtained as a by- product of the treatment of certain ores.

       As per CRCL Report, apart from 53.6% Sodium  Chloride, subject product also contains Sodium  Carbonate.  It is derived due to chemical reaction  of caustic soda, chlorine gas and urea and is unfit  for human consumption.  This position was also  clarified in the statement of the appellant’s  representative Shri Surinder Singh Chawla, who  stated that the subject product is "Sodium  Chloride" which is the technical name of the salt  and known in the market as such.  That it is unfit  for human consumption and was used only for  industrial applications such as by soap  manufacturers as filler in the detergents and the  same was not used for human consumption.  

       As per the fourth category mentioned in the  explanatory notes in the HSN, Chapter Heading 25.01  covers, inter alia, "residuary Sodium Chloride, in  particular that left after chemical processing".   The subject product fully answers the fourth  category of goods covered by Chapter Heading 25.01  as per HSN.  Even, according to the process of  manufacture described in the show cause notice, the  subject product arises as a residuary product left  after the chemical processing for the manufacture  of Hydrazine.  The Chemical Examiner of the  Department has also opined that the said product  "is to be taken as Sodium Chloride".    The  explanatory notes, below Chapter Heading 25.01 of  the HSN make it clear that the sodium chloride  which is obtained by the chemical processing would  be covered by the Chapter Heading 25.01.

       By referring to the titles of Section V and  Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff, Tribunal  has held that in order to be covered by Chapter 25  the goods must be "mineral products" and these must  be Salt, Sulphur, Clay and Stone, plastering  materials, lime and cement.  This finding of the  Tribunal is totally incorrect and is contrary to  Rule 1 of the Rules for Interpretation of Central  Excise Tariff which is reproduced below:-

"1.     The titles of Sections and  Chapters are provided for ease of  reference only; for legal purposes,  classification shall be determined  according to the terms of the headings  and any relative Section or Chapter  Notes and, provided such headings or  Notes do not otherwise require,  according to the provisions  hereinafter contained."

       It is specifically provided in Rule 1 of the  Interpretative Rules, titles of Sections and  Chapters are provided for ease of reference only  and for legal purposes classification must be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

determined according to the terms of the headings  and relative section or Chapter notes.  Tribunal  has totally failed to consider the said  interpretation of Rule 1.   

       The Tribunal has further held that since the  starting raw materials were not classifiable under  Chapter 25, the residue in question cannot be a  product covered by Chapter 25.  This finding is  based on wrong assumptions and reasoning.  There is  no such requirement in law that before a product is  classified under Chapter 25 it must be manufactured  out of raw materials falling under Chapter 25.  It  goes against the explanatory notes of HSN below  Heading No.25.01.   

The Tribunal has further held as under:-

       "....On a study of the process of  manufacture we find that certain  chemicals are reacted, none of these  chemicals are classifiable under  chapter 25, thus the Residue in  question cannot be a product obtained  after chemical processing e.g.  (electrolysis). None is a bye-product  of a treatment of certain ores. The  product is obtained after  crystallisation. The product is  obtained as a bye-product or Residue  while manufacturing Hydrazine.  Hydrazine is admittedly a chemical.  Thus the Residue in the instant case  is nothing but a residue of chemical  and allied industries. We note that  there is specific heading for Residue  of chemical and allied industries  under the present chapter Heading  38.24. Since there is specific  heading, we need not go to decide the  issue by resorting to be Rules for  interpretation of tariff. These Rules  are attracted only when the heading is  not specific or the product is a  composite one."

       The aforesaid reasoning of the Tribunal in our  view is incorrect.  Heading No.38.23 (which was  subsequently renumbered as Heading No.38.24) is a  residuary heading which applied only to "residual  products of chemical and allied industries, not  elsewhere specified or included".  The Tribunal  totally erred in picking up the expression "residue  of chemical and allied industries" and on that  basis holding as if the said heading is a specific  heading.  It is on such wrong assumption that the  Tribunal further proceeded to hold that Rules for  Interpretation of the Tariff are irrelevant.  Thus  the entire reasoning of the Tribunal is totally  misconceived and untenable.   Tribunal has missed  the words "not elsewhere specified or included".   In the present case, we find that "Denatured Salt"  is specifically included in Chapter Heading  No.25.01.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

       During the course of hearing, learned senior  counsel appearing for the Revenue relying on  Chapter note 2 of Chapter 25 of the Central Excise  Tariff submitted that in order to be classified as  "Denatured Salt" under Heading No.25.01, the  starting raw material must be salt and the product  must not contain any impurities.  Chapter note 2 is  reproduced below:-

"2.     Except where their context  otherwise requires, heading Nos.25.01,  25.03 and 25.05 cover only products  which have been washed (even with  chemical substances, eliminating the  impurities without changing the  structure of the product), crushed,  ground, powdered, levigated, sifted,  screened, or concentrated by  flotation, magnetic separation or  other mechanical or physical processes  (except crystallization), but not  products that have been roasted,  calcined, obtained by mixing or  subjected to processing beyond that  mentioned in each heading or sub- heading."  

       On a reading of Chapter note 2 of Chapter 25 we  find that there is no requirement or condition  anywhere either in Chapter note 2 or in any other  provision of law that the starting material must  itself be salt.  The process adopted by the  appellant as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the show  cause notice is a physical process.  In the said  process Hydrazine is concentrated by physical  process and the residual solids are obtained as  "Denatured Salt".  These residuals are the  residuary Sodium Chloride left after chemical  processing which fully answers the fourth category  of explanatory notes in HSN.  Apart from this,  similar chapter notes also appears in Chapter No.1  of Chapter 25 in HSN which clearly provides that  residuary Sodium Chloride left after chemical  processing is covered by Heading No.25.01.  Chapter  note 2 does not provide anywhere that in order to  be covered by Heading No.25.01 the product must not  contain impurities.  The bracketed portion in  Chapter note 2 is being totally misread by the  Revenue.  The only effect of the bracketed portion  is that if the goods in question are washed, such  wash may be even with chemical substances  eliminating the impurities without changing the  structure of the product.  It is not as if Chapter  note 2 provides that in order to be covered by  Heading No.25.01, all impurities must be removed.   Similarly, it is not provided either in Chapter 25  of the Central Excise Tariff or in Chapter note 2  or in HSN that in order to be covered by Heading  No.25.01, the starting material must be salt.   Residuary Sodium Chloride left after chemical  processing is clearly covered by Heading No.25.01  as per HSN.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

       Even by applying Rues 2(b), 3(a) and 3(b) of  the "Rules for the Interpretation" of the Central  Excise Tariff (which are part of the Central Excise  Tariff Act, 1985) the subject product is to be  treated as Sodium Chloride as the same is unfit for  human consumption.  Rules 2(b), 3(a) and 3(b) of  the Interpretative Rules is set out below:-

" 2(b)  Any reference in a heading to  a material or substance shall be taken  to include a reference to mixtures or  combinations of that material or  substance with other materials or  substances.  Any reference to goods of  a given material or substance shall be  taken to include a reference to goods  consisting wholly or partly of such  material or substance.  The  classification of goods consisting of  more than one material or substance  shall be according to the principles  contained in rule 3.

3.      When by application of sub-rule  (b) of rule 2 or for any other reason,  goods are, prima facie, classifiable  under two or more headings,  classification shall be effected as  follows:

       (a)     The heading which provides  the most specific description shall be  preferred to headings providing a more  general description.   However, when  two or more headings each refer to  part only of the materials or  substances contained in mixed or  composite goods or to part only of the  items in a set, those headings are to  be regarded as equally specific in  relation to those goods, even if one  of them gives a more complete or  precise description of the goods.

       (b)     Mixtures, composite goods  consisting of different materials or  made up of different components, and  goods put up in sets, which cannot be  classified by reference to (a), shall  be classified as if they consisted of  the material or component which gives  them their essential character,  insofar as this criterion is  applicable."

       Rule 2(b) provides that any reference in a  heading to a material or substance shall be taken  to include a reference to mixtures or combinations  of that material or substance with other materials  or substances.  The classification of goods  consisting of more than one material or substance  shall be according to the principles contained in  Rule 3.   Sub-rule 3(a) provides that heading which  provides for most specific description shall be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

preferred to headings providing a more general  description.   Sub-rule 3(b) provides that  mixtures, composite goods consisting of different  materials or made of a different components, and  goods put up in sets, which cannot be classified  with reference to sub-rule (a) of Rule 3, shall be  classified as if they consisted of the material or  component which gives them their essential  character.      In the present case, the goods in  question admittedly contain 53.6% Sodium Chloride  and their essential character is derived by the  Sodium Chloride, which is salt.  Since in the  present case the salt is unfit for human  consumption, the same would be classifiable as  "Denatured Salt" under the specific Heading  No.25.01 and not under Heading 38.23 which is a  residuary Heading.   

       This apart, classification of goods is a matter  relating to chargeability and the burden of proof  is squarely upon the Revenue.  If the Department  intends to classify the goods under a particular  heading or sub-heading different from that claimed  by the assessee, the Department has to adduce  proper evidence and discharge the burden of proof.   In the present case the said burden has not been  discharged at all by the Revenue.  On the one hand,  from the trade and market enquiries made by the  Department, from the report of the Chemical  Examiner, CRCL and from HSN, it is quite clear that  the goods are classifiable as "Denatured Salt"  falling under Chapter Heading No. 25.01.   The  Department has not shown that the subject product  is not bought or sold or is not known or is dealt  with in the market as Denatured Salt.  Department’s  own Chemical Examiner after examining the chemical  composition has not said that it is not denatured  salt.  On the other hand, after examining the  chemical composition has opined that the subject  matter is to be treated as Sodium Chloride.

       It has been held by this Court in number of  judgments that burden of proof is on the Revenue in  the matter of classification.  In Union of India  and others Vs. Garware Nylons Limited and others,  1996 (10) SCC 413, in para 15 this Court held as  under:-

"15.    In our view, the conclusion  reached by the High Court is fully in  accord with the decisions of this  Court and the same is justified in  law. The burden of proof is on the  taxing authorities to show that the  particular case or item in question is  taxable in the manner claimed by them.  Mere assertion in that regard is of no  avail. It has been held by this Court  that there should be material to enter  appropriate finding in that regard and  the material may be either oral or  documentary. It is for the taxing  authority to lay evidence in that  behalf even before the first  adjudicating authority. Especially in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

a case as this, where the claim of the  assessee is borne out by the trade  enquiries received by them and also  the affidavits filed by persons  dealing with the subject-matter, a  heavy burden lay upon the Revenue to  disprove the said materials by  adducing proper evidence.  Unfortunately, no such attempt was  made. As stated, the evidence led in  this case conclusively goes to show  that Nylon Twine manufactured by the  assessee has been treated as a kind of  Nylon Yarn by the people conversant  with the trade. It is commonly  considered as Nylon Yarn. Hence, it is  to be classified under Item 18 of the  Act. The Revenue has failed to  establish the contrary. We would do  well to remember the guidelines laid  down by this Court in Dunlop India  Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC  597 at page 607. in such a situation,  wherein it was stated (AIR p.607 : SCC  p 254, para 35):-- "..... When an article has, by  all standards, a reasonable claim  to be classified under an  enumerated item in the Tariff  Schedule, it will be against the  very principle of classification  to deny it the parentage and  consign it to an orphanage of the  residuary clause."                                  Similarly, in Hindustan Ferodo Limited Vs.   Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1997 (2) SCC  677, it is held in para 4 as under:-          "It is not in dispute before us,  as it cannot be, that the onus of  establishing that the said rings fell  within Item 22-F lay upon the Revenue.   The Revenue led no evidence.  The onus  was not discharged.  Assuming  therefore, that the Tribunal was right  in rejecting the evidence that was  produced on behalf of the appellants,  the appeal should, nonetheless, have  been allowed".   

       It was submitted by the learned senior counsel  appearing for the Revenue that the goods were  classifiable under Heading No.38.23 (now 38.24) as  "residuary products of chemical or allied  industries not elsewhere specified or included"  which was the last item covered by Heading  No.38.23.  The said Heading No.38.23 is only a  residuary heading covering residual product of  chemical or allied industries "not elsewhere  specified or included".  In the   present case  since the goods were covered by a specific heading,  i.e., Heading No. 25.01, the same cannot be  classified under the residuary heading at all.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

This position is clearly laid down in Rule 3(a) of  the Interpretative Rules set out above.  As per the  said Interpretative Rule 3(a), the heading which  provides the most specific description shall be  preferred to the heading providing a more general  description.  This position is also well settled by  a number of judgments of this Court.  Reference may  made to M/s. Bharat Forge and Press Industries (P)  Ltd.  Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda,  Gujarat, 1990 (1) SCC 532.  It was observed in para  4 inter alia as under:- "4.     The question before us is whether  the Department is right in claiming  that the items in question are  dutiable under tariff entry 68. This,  as mentioned already, is the residuary  entry and only such goods as cannot be  brought under the various specific  entries in the tariff should be  attempted to be brought under the  residuary entry. In other words,  unless the department can establish  that the goods in question can by no  conceivable process of reasoning be  brought under any of the tariff items,  resort cannot be had to the residuary  item...."

       Similarly, in Dunlop India Ltd.  Vs. Union of  India & Others, 1976 (2) SCC 241, this Court held:- ".....When an article has, by all  standards, a reasonable claim to be  classified under an enumerated item in  the Tariff Schedule, it will be  against the very principle of  classification to deny it the  parentage and consign it to an  orphanage of the residuary clause. The  question of competition between two  rival classifications will, however,  stand on a different footing."

       Looking from any angle it cannot be held that  the subject product would fall under the sub- heading 38.34 (now 38.24).  It would fall under the  specific Heading 25.01 as has been claimed by the  assessee/appellant in the classification list filed  by it.    For the reasons stated above, these appeals are  accepted and the impugned orders are set aside with  consequential effects.  Parties will bear their own  costs.