9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n issues and therefore are being dealt with by this common order. 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 bills of entry as follows: 'Sulphonated Fish Oil OPTIMALIN UPNC' (in the case in appeal No.C/371/07) 'Sulphonated Fish Oil ADUVAX LB OPTIMALIN UPNC' (in the case in appeal No.C/360/07) 'Sulphonated Fish Oil SULCODOL CI'. (in the case in appeal No. C/372/07) 4. The department allowed provisional clearance of the goods after drawing samples which were sent to Central Revenue Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this description which reads as 'oil based on Sulphonated Fish Oil', he submits that these products should not be treated as 'Sulphonated Fish Oil' and considering the use of these items for the purpose of fat liquoring, they should be treated as falling under chapter sub heading 34039100. In this regards, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Associated Finishing Agency 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 cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of Customs Tariff, 1975 which envisage giving preference to most specific description. 7. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Associated Finishing Agency is on a clear finding that the goods imported by the appellants in that case was found on test by the Customs Lab to be 'fat liquor' and not 'Sulphonated Fish Oil'. Similarly, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prema Colors Chemicals is on the appreciation of fact that the sample of the product in the said case did not shown the presence of 'Sulphonated 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 (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
