9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.3.07 of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Heard learned SDR. None appears for the respondents inspite of notice. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents imported goods claiming to be Sulphonated Fish Oil seeking classification under chapter sub heading 34029020. The imported products were in fact declared in the bill of entry as follows: 'Sulphonated Fish Oil ADUVAX LB & DERMINOL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sification as proposed in the show cause notice and finalized assessment of bill of entry and demanded differential duty. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the original authority. Hence, the department is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned SDR submits that the test report of the CLRI clearly mentioned the product as 'preparation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ency vs. CC, Chennai reported in CESTAT-MAD and the decision in the case of Prema Colors & Chemicals vs. CC, Chennai reported in 2008 (231) ELT 96. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. At the outset, we note that the burden to prove classification of the imported products is on the department. We are dealing with classification of items claimed as 'Sulphonated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in respect of ADUVAX LB describe the nature of the product as #oil based on Sulphonated Fish Oil'. At the same time, there is clear opinion 'ADUVAX LB' is a 'strong Sulphonated Fish Oil'. This in fact supports the view of the respondents rather than the claim of the Revenue. Therefore, in our considered opinion the imported products deserved to be considered as Sulphonated Fish Oil and the term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Fish Oil'. These two cases therefore, are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) which are based on appreciation of test reports of CRCL and application of Rule 3(a) of Rules of Interpretation of Customs Tariff, 1975. 9. The appeal is therefore rejected. (pronou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
