Specific tariff classification for split air-conditioners prevails over general entry, and linked exemption fails without proof of eligibility.

Imported split air-conditioners of 2.0 ton capacity were held classifiable under the capacity-based tariff entry for split air-conditioners of two tonnes and above, rather than the general split system entry, because the specific description prevails over a broader classification and common parlance governs over belated technical material. As the goods were not classifiable under the entry required by Notification No. 85/2004, the claimant failed to establish eligibility for the exemption and the notification benefit was denied. The departmental classification was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported split air-conditioner of 2.0 ton capacity was classifiable under sub-heading 8415 10 10 or sub-heading 8415 83 10; (ii) whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 85/2004 dated 31.08.2004.

Issue (i): Whether the imported split air-conditioner of 2.0 ton capacity was classifiable under sub-heading 8415 10 10 or sub-heading 8415 83 10.

Analysis: The tariff scheme differentiated between split system air-conditioners under sub-heading 8415 10 10 and split air-conditioners of two tonnes and above under sub-heading 8415 83 10. The imported goods were found to be split air-conditioners of specified 2.0 ton capacity, and classification was to be determined by the common parlance and tariff description rather than by technical literature produced belatedly. The more specific entry based on capacity was held to exclude the more general split-system entry.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8415 83 10, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 85/2004 dated 31.08.2004.

Analysis: Exemption notification benefit was contingent upon the goods being brought within sub-heading 8415 10 10. Since the classification claim failed, the appellant did not discharge the burden of establishing eligibility for the exemption. The notification was therefore not available.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the exemption benefit, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The tariff classification adopted by the department was upheld and the claimed exemption was denied, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where competing tariff entries exist, the specific description, including capacity-based classification, prevails over a general entry, and exemption dependent on such classification must be strictly proved by the claimant.

---