2016 (7) TMI 1123 - AT - Customs

Classification of import of general brand split type air-conditioner AOGA 24 FTT AH outdoor unit, ASGA 24 FTTA indoor unit capacity 2.0 ton (R410A gas) - classifiable under 8415 83 10 or under CTH 8415 10 00 - Held that - when the appellant sought exemption under Notification No.85/2004 dated 31.8.2004 under a trade agreement, it was the burden of the appellant to bring its goods within the four of CTH 8415 10 10 discharging the same since exemption is an exception to the dutiability and to be construed strictly at the stage of determination. When appellant failed in the classification of the goods, it is not entitled to the benefit of exemption notification. It can be irresistibly be concluded that mere assertion without meeting common parlance test and elementary principles of jurisprudence that Generelia specialibus non derogant General things do not derogate for special , appellant fails to succeed since two ton split air-conditioner subscribes to the CTH 8415 83 10 instead of the CTH 8415 10 10. - Decided against the appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the imported air-conditioner units.
2. Applicability of the basic duty exemption under Notification No. 085/2004.
3. Admissibility of technical literature submitted at the appellate stage.
4. Interpretation of specific versus general tariff entries.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the Imported Air-Conditioner Units:
The primary issue revolves around the classification of the imported air-conditioner units. The appellant argued that their imported split system air-conditioner should be classified under CTH 8415 10 10, which pertains to "Window or wall types, self-contained or split system." However, both the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the specific entry CTH 8415 83 10, which is capacity-based and pertains to "split air-conditioner two tonnes and above," should prevail. The tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the specific entry (CTH 8415 83 10) excludes the general entry (CTH 8415 10 10) due to the specified tonnage capacity.

2. Applicability of the Basic Duty Exemption under Notification No. 085/2004:
The appellant claimed entitlement to a basic duty exemption under Notification No. 085/2004 dated 31.08.2004 under Sl. No. 48 of the Indo Thailand Free Trade Agreement. The tribunal noted that the appellant failed to classify the goods correctly under CTH 8415 10 10, which was a prerequisite for availing the exemption. Since the goods were classified under CTH 8415 83 10, the exemption was not applicable. The tribunal reiterated that exemptions must be construed strictly, and the burden of proof lies on the appellant to bring its goods within the specified tariff heading.

3. Admissibility of Technical Literature Submitted at the Appellate Stage:
The tribunal highlighted that technical literature and documents submitted at the appellate stage were not presented before the adjudicating authority or the Commissioner (Appeals). It is a settled principle that technical literature cannot be introduced for the first time before a higher court unless it was cited before the court of first instance. The tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide these documents earlier, which could have influenced the initial classification decision.

4. Interpretation of Specific Versus General Tariff Entries:
The tribunal emphasized the principle that a specific entry excludes a general entry. The imported goods, being a two-ton split air-conditioner, fell under the specific entry CTH 8415 83 10, which is more precise than the general entry CTH 8415 10 10. This interpretation aligns with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Moorco (India) Ltd. Collector of Customs, Madras 1994 (74) ELT 5 (SC), which states that specific entries take precedence over general entries. The tribunal also noted that the classification of goods should be based on common understanding and not merely on technical literature.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the appellant's assertion without meeting the common parlance test and elementary principles of jurisprudence failed to succeed. The two-ton split air-conditioner is correctly classified under CTH 8415 83 10 instead of CTH 8415 10 10. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the classification under CTH 8415 83 10 was upheld, denying the appellant the benefit of the duty exemption under Notification No. 085/2004.

Final Order:
The appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced in open court on 26.7.2016)

← Previous Next →