TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upheld Classification of Air Freshener: Key Takeaways from HSN and Principle of Last Entry</h1> <h3>M/s. Pennzoil Quaker State (I) Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs Import, Nhava Sheva</h3> The Tribunal upheld the classification of Air Freshner (Paper Type) under Heading 3307.90, rejecting the appellants' argument for classification under ... Classification dispute - Issue involved in this case is regarding classification of only Air freshener (Paper Type). The appellants claimed classification under Heading 3307.49 whereas the department has classified the product under Heading 3307.90. - Held that:- It is well settled that HSN is safe guide for classification. It is also a settled principle that the entry which comes last to be preferred. The entry 3307.90 comes last. Therefore there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower authorities. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order is upheld. The appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. Issues: Classification of Air Freshner (Paper Type) under Customs Tariff - Heading 3307.49 or 3307.90Detailed Analysis:1. Classification Dispute: The appellants imported Air Freshners (Paper Type) and Air Freshners (Spray Type) and classified them under Heading 3307.49, while the department proposed classification under Heading 3307.90. The lower adjudicating authority classified the products under 3307.90, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants contested the classification of Air Freshner (Paper Type) only.2. Appellants' Contention: The appellants argued that Air Freshner (Paper Type) is not intended for use on the human body or clothing, as indicated by the product instructions to avoid contact with skin and eyes. They referenced a similar product classified under Heading 3307.49 by the Advance Ruling Authority and information from the internet supporting their classification argument.3. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that as per the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN), the product falls under Heading 3307.90 specifically. They argued that the Advance Ruling Authority's decision is specific to the concerned assessee and does not have general applicability. They also disputed the relevance of internet information provided by the appellants.4. Judicial Analysis: The Tribunal examined the relevant Tariff Entries, noting that Heading 3307.49 covers goods other than those under Heading 3307.41, which includes agarbatti and odoriferous preparations for burning. The HSN listing explicitly includes perfumed papers under Heading 3307.90, supporting the department's classification. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of HSN as a guide for classification and the principle of preferring the last entry, which in this case was 3307.90. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' concurrent findings, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants regarding the classification of Air Freshner (Paper Type).In conclusion, the judgment resolved the classification dispute by affirming the classification of Air Freshner (Paper Type) under Heading 3307.90 based on the HSN listing and the principle of preferring the last entry. The detailed analysis considered the arguments presented by both parties and highlighted the significance of HSN in determining the appropriate classification under the Customs Tariff.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
