Panchang classification over calendar description determined tariff treatment and defeated the excise duty demand.

A publication dominated by tithi, nakshatra, vara, yoga, karana, auspicious timings, planetary positions and related almanac content was treated as a panchang rather than a calendar. Because the date sequence occupied less than half the page space and the item was marketed as a panchang, its predominant character supported classification under Central Excise Tariff Heading 4901, not Heading 4910. On that basis, the contrary classification adopted by the lower authorities was unsustainable, and the excise duty demand based on calendar classification failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned publications were classifiable as calendars under Central Excise Tariff Heading 4910 or as panchang/almanac under Central Excise Tariff Heading 4901, and whether central excise duty was leviable on that basis.

Analysis: The publication was marketed as a panchang and not as a simple calendar. The date sequence occupied less than half of the page space, while the contents were dominated by tithi, nakshatra, vara, yoga, karana, auspicious timings, planetary positions and related information. On the overall nature and predominant features of the publication, and following the earlier High Court view on a similar publication, the material was found to be an almanac or panchang rather than a calendar. The classification adopted by the lower authorities under Heading 4910 was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The publications were not classifiable as calendars under Heading 4910 and were to be treated as panchang/almanac under Heading 4901; the duty demand based on the contrary classification failed.

---