1990 (6) TMI 164 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Whether the consignment of ceramic colours imported by the appellants is eligible for exemption under Notification 210/71 dated 25-12-1971.

Analysis:
The appeals revolve around the eligibility of ceramic colours imported by the appellants for exemption under Notification 210/71. The appellants imported ceramic colours for multi-colour printing on glass bottles and paid Customs duty under Tariff Heading 32.04/12. Subsequently, Additional duty of Customs (CVD) was levied under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. The appellants claimed exemption under Notification 210/71, which provides full exemption to ceramic colours. The Assistant Collector rejected their claims based on test reports and Tariff Advice, stating the goods were not purely ceramic colours but ceramic glazes or enamels. The Collector (Appeals) upheld these decisions, emphasizing that the imported goods resembled ceramic glaze or enamels more than ceramic colours.

The appellants argued that the goods were described as ceramic colours in invoices and declared as such in the Bill of Entry. They contended that the lower authorities ignored the Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that mere chemical tests should not solely determine classification. The appellants requested a re-test, which was not allowed. They provided evidence indicating the use of the material as ceramic colours exempt under Notification 210/71, urging for their refund claim to be granted.

The Senior Departmental Representative referred to test reports indicating the goods were prepared ceramic enamels, not ceramic colours. He highlighted the absence of a specific definition of ceramic colours and referenced manufacturer classifications of the goods. The Department argued that the goods did not meet the criteria of ceramic colours as per HSN Explanatory Note and were not verifiable enamels or glazes.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and evidence presented. They noted that the appellants had cleared the goods without contesting the assessment after the initial test. The goods were branded products with consistent composition. The test reports and authorities classified the goods as ceramic enamels or glazes, not ceramic colours. The Tribunal accepted the Board's clarification that ceramic glazes are distinct from ceramic colours and are not classified as pigments under Item 14-CET. They found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decisions and rejected the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions, stating that the imported goods did not qualify as ceramic colours under Notification 210/71. The classification as ceramic enamels or glazes, rather than ceramic colours, was deemed appropriate based on the evidence and interpretations provided.