Tariff classification of inks depends on the Indian Excise entry, not conflicting HSN notes, for writing ink treatment.

Classification under Chapter 32.15 turned on the wording and scheme of the Central Excise Tariff, not the HSN notes where the two were not aligned. The non-marker inks were treated as water-based writing inks and classified under CSH 3215.10, with nil duty. Marker inks used in marker pens were also held to fall within writing inks rather than the residual category of other inks, because pens were treated as pens for tariff purposes and the tariff entry, not the HSN, controlled classification. The assessee therefore succeeded on classification of all inks in dispute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether inks other than marker inks manufactured and captively consumed by the assessee were classifiable as writing inks under CSH 3215.10 or as other inks under CSH 3215.90; (ii) Whether marker inks were classifiable as writing inks under CSH 3215.10 or as other inks under CSH 3215.90.

Issue (i): Whether inks other than marker inks manufactured and captively consumed by the assessee were classifiable as writing inks under CSH 3215.10 or as other inks under CSH 3215.90.

Analysis: The classification turned on the structure of the Central Excise Tariff entry for Chapter 32.15, which separately recognises writing ink and a residual category for other inks. The Tribunal's finding that the non-marker inks were water based and answered to the description of writing ink was accepted. The Court also noted that the HSN scheme was not aligned with the Indian tariff for this entry, but that did not disturb the finding in favour of the assessee for the remaining inks.

Conclusion: The non-marker inks were correctly classified as writing inks under CSH 3215.10 and were chargeable to nil duty, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether marker inks were classifiable as writing inks under CSH 3215.10 or as other inks under CSH 3215.90.

Analysis: Marker inks were used in marker pens, and the record showed that marker pens were treated as pens rather than as a different class of article for tariff purposes. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in relying on the HSN classification for marker inks because the HSN and the Central Excise Tariff were not aligned on this entry. The earlier administrative understanding that pens and parts of pens had long been exempted also supported treatment of marker inks as writing inks.

Conclusion: Marker inks were classifiable as writing inks under CSH 3215.10 and not under CSH 3215.90, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals failed and the assessee succeeded on classification, with all the inks in dispute held to fall under the writing ink entry.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Indian tariff entry is not aligned with the HSN notes, HSN cannot control classification, and goods must be classified according to the wording and scheme of the applicable tariff entry.

---