Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the impugned inks were classifiable as writing ink under sub-heading 3215.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or as other inks under sub-heading 3215.90, and whether the classification had to be determined by end use in writing instruments or by the constituent material and HSN notes.
Analysis: The tariff heading and the HSN explanatory notes were read as classifying inks by their nature and composition rather than by the end use of the instrument in which they were used. Ordinary writing or drawing inks were treated as water-based inks with gum or similar additives, while other inks, including marking and speciality inks, fell within the residuary category. The end-use approach urged by the assessee was rejected as too broad. On the admitted composition of the products, all the inks except 99-Marker Inks were found to be water-based and therefore classifiable as writing ink, while 99-Marker Inks, being non-water-based, were held to fall under the residuary heading.
Conclusion: The classification was upheld under sub-heading 3215.10 for all impugned inks except 99-Marker Inks, which were held classifiable under sub-heading 3215.90.
Ratio Decidendi: For classification under Heading 32.15, the controlling test is the nature and constituent composition of the ink as reflected in the tariff scheme and HSN notes, not the end use of the article in a writing instrument.