9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceed further. The assessing authorities has not been discharged in accordance with the law as held. The classification adopted by the assessing authorities fails in the face of the specific entry which the respondent herein has not been able to demonstrate as having been excluded from the claimed description. Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 16 (SC)] and by the Tribunal in Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd [2016 (42) STR 96 (Tri-Del)], has not been discharged. 3. Learned Authorised Representative submits that the adjudicating authority had drawn upon the technical material available in Wikipedia to distinguish the impugned goods from 'printed circuit board (PCB)' and that the scope of note 6 in the Explanatory Notes relating to heading 8534 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 restricts the coverage of any 'circuit board' with extraneous material. Likewise, that appellant had been seeking classification as tariff item 9405 40 90 in the past makes it abundantly clear, according to Learned Authorised Representative, that the goods merit classification within heading 9405 of First Scheduled to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. He drew attention to the specific finding that the later of the two entries must prevail accordance with rule 3 (c) of General Rules for Interpretation of the Import Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Urging us to rely upon the inclusion of products specifically enunciated at serial no. 227 in Schedule II of notification no. 1/2007-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 corresp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he classification has to be determined on the lines laid out in the decisions supra. 5. The lower authorities have laid emphasis on the entry in the rate notification pertaining to levy of goods and services tax (GST) as is applicable to imports within the confines of section 3 (7) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In this context, it may be worthwhile referring to the decision of the Tribunal in Ortho Clinical Diagnostics India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai [final order no. A/85710/2022 dated 12th August 2022 disposing off customs appeal no. 85868 of 2020 against order-in-original no. CC-VA/12/2020-2021 ADJ(I) ACC dated 2nd July 2020 of Commissioner of Customs-III (Import), ACC Mumbai] holding that '15. The effect of the proposition of Revenue, in support of the adjudication order, on the part of Learned Authorized Representative is that the impugned goods are not specifically emplaced in the claimed Schedules or in Schedule IV, V and V of the 'integrated tax' rate notification with consequent application of the residuary serial no. 453 corresponding to 'goods which are not specified in Schedule I, II, IV, V and VI' with columnar reference to any Chapter o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , not elsewhere specified or included; illuminated signs, illuminated name-plates and the like, having permanently fixed light source, and parts thereof not elsewhere specified or included' corresponding to heading 9405 of First Scheduled to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The specificity of description in the claimed classification is not anywhere matched by the description within which the assessing authorities have sought to place the impugned goods. Moreover, it is clear from the description that 'parts', if at all finding fitment within heading 9405 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, should not be specified or included elsewhere. In the light of the specific description, notwithstanding the addition of a metallic layer which does not find elaboration in the rival heading too, rule 3 (a) of The General Rules for the Interpretation of Import Tariff offers the solution without having to proceed further. 8. In re Hindustan Ferodo Ltd, it has been held that '3. It is not in dispute before us, as it cannot be, that the onus of establishing that the said rings fell within Item 22F lay upon the Revenue. The Revenue led no evidence. The onus was not discharged. Assuming ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
