Tariff classification burden of proof: grain cleaning and drying machine fell under milling industry heading, not temperature-treatment entry.

The grain cleaning and drying machine was held to fall under Heading 8437.00 as machinery used in the milling industry, not under Heading 84.19 for treatment of materials by a process involving change of temperature. The classification turned on the machine's nature, purpose and actual use, and Heading 84.19 was found inapplicable because the revenue did not show that the goods squarely met that entry. The show cause notice lacked adequate factual particulars, and no technical test report or expert opinion was produced to rebut the assessee. As the revenue failed to discharge the burden of proof, the more specific entry matching the machine's principal use prevailed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned grain cleaning and drying machine was classifiable under Heading 8437.00 as machinery used in the milling industry or under Heading 84.19 as machinery for treatment of materials by a process involving change of temperature.

Analysis: The competing tariff entries were examined on the basis of the nature, character, purpose and actual use of the machine. The revenue did not establish that the goods answered the description of Heading 84.19, and the show cause notice also did not adequately set out facts showing how the machine satisfied that heading. Heading 84.19 contemplates machinery primarily meant for treatment of materials by the specified processes, and the word "drying" cannot be read in isolation. The machine was found to serve the milling industry and to fall within the specific scope of Heading 8437.00. No technical test report or expert opinion was produced to rebut the assessee's position, so the burden of proof on the revenue was not discharged and the benefit of doubt went to the assessee.

Conclusion: The machine was correctly classifiable under Heading 8437.00 and not under Heading 84.19.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the revenue was unsustainable, and the assessee succeeded on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In tariff classification disputes, the revenue must prove that the goods squarely fit the disputed entry, and where such burden is not discharged, the classification more specifically matching the goods' principal use and description must prevail.

---