2000 (4) TMI 257 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of drawing inks under sub-heading 3215.10 of CETA, 1985.
Distinction between writing ink and drawing ink for classification purposes.
Applicability of different inks such as hi-liter pen ink, marking pen ink, and sketch pen ink under specific sub-headings.

Analysis:

1. Classification of Drawing Inks: The appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the classification of drawing inks under sub-heading 3215.10 of CETA, 1985. The Commissioner accepted that writing and drawing inks are used interchangeably based on the description in Chapter Heading 32.15. However, it was noted that the adjudicating authority did not clearly establish that the inks in question do not fall under the category of "other inks." The Commissioner set aside the original order and allowed the appeal subject to verification by the Assistant Commissioner.

2. Distinction between Writing and Drawing Inks: The main issue revolved around whether writing ink and drawing ink are distinct for classification purposes. The argument presented was that while writing ink can be used for drawing, the reverse is not always true. Writing ink requires specific characteristics like liquidity for flow, which may not be essential for drawing ink. This distinction led to the conclusion that drawing ink should not be classified under sub-heading 3215.10 meant for writing inks, but rather under 3215.90 for other inks.

3. Applicability of Different Inks: The advocate for the respondents argued that there is no difference between drawing and writing inks, emphasizing that the raw materials used in manufacturing various inks are the same. However, the Tribunal found that the HSN and CETA headings align, with sub-headings 3215.10 for writing inks at nil rate and 3215.90 for other inks at 18 per cent. It was clarified that sketch pen and drawing inks fall under 3215.10 for writing inks, while specialized inks like marker inks and hi-liter inks are categorized under 3215.90.

4. Conclusion: The Tribunal decided the classifications accordingly, remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for further action. The appeal was partially allowed, with a clear distinction made between the classification of different types of inks under specific sub-headings based on their characteristics and intended use.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, providing a comprehensive understanding of the reasoning behind the decision regarding the classification of drawing inks and the distinction between various types of inks under the relevant tariff sub-headings.