9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities have relied upon purported common parlance derived from purported consumer behaviour which is neither common parlance nor derived from any acceptable study of the marketplace. Common parlance is, at best, a mechanism for resolving ambiguity of description that impedes fitment within the tariff lines in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is not a substitute for determination of the appropriate tariff item which, however, does not appear to have weighed with the first appellate authority. As the exercise in classification has not been correctly carried out, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order is not consistent with law - as enacted and judicially determined. It would, therefore, be appropriate fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is the propriety of the revision of the classification in accordance with settled law and procedure and the General Rules for Interpretation of the Import Tariff which, in the face of challenge in appeal, was left undisturbed in the impugned order. We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned Authorized Representative at length on their respective submissions. 3. The first appellate authority appears to have been guided by findings pertaining to dispute in which the claim of appellant was disallowed as is evident from 14. The Assistant Commissioner (Customs), ICD Waluj, Aurangabad while taking into consideration Notification No. 01/2017-lntegrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der not interfered with - . In this case I find that an ordinary common man of reasonable prudence cannot go to market to purchase a Low Noise Block (LNB) down converter but if he goes to purchase a set top box (STB) for watching a television set; definitely he purchases Set Top Box which is including the disputed goods LNB as an integral part of the STB. Thus it can be reasonably construed the imported goods viz. LNB are correctly classifiable as Parts of goods falling under S528 as described in CHS 85291099 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 27. The Rule 1 of General Rule so Interpretations provides that the title of Sections, Chapter and sub chapter are provided ease of reference only. For legal purposes, classification shall be determined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in judicial determination by the Hon ble Supreme Court, in Hindustan Ferodo Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise [1997 (89) ELT 16 (SC)], thus It is not in dispute before us as it cannot be, that onus of establishing that the said rings fell within Item No. 22-F lay upon the Revenue. The Revenue led no evidence. The onus was not discharged. Assuming therefore, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the evidence that was produced on behalf of the appellants, the appeal should, nonetheless, have been allowed. and, in HPL Chemicals Ltd v. Commissioner of Central; Excise, Chandigarh [2006 (197) ELT 324 (SC)], thus 28. This apart, classification of goods is a matter relating to chargeability and the burden of proof is squarely upon the Revenue. If th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
