Tariff classification of Alkali Blue Flushing favours assessee where dyeing process use is not proved

Alkali Blue Flushing used in printing ink was held not classifiable as synthetic organic dyestuff under Item 14D because no evidence showed use in any dyeing process, even though the product could also be used as a paint and to tone or tint ink. The Tribunal's view that Item 14D did not apply was therefore justified, and the commodity fell under Item 14-I(1)(ii). Where two tariff classifications were reasonably possible, the construction favourable to the assessee had to be adopted. The Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Alkali Blue Flushing used in the manufacture of printing ink was classifiable under Item 14-I(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff or under Item 14D as synthetic organic dyestuff used in a dyeing process.

Analysis: The product was used to tone or tint printing ink and was also capable of use as a paint. No evidence showed that it was used in any dyeing process. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal's view that the commodity did not fall within Item 14D was justified. Where two views were possible, the view favouring the assessee was to be adopted.

Conclusion: The commodity was not classifiable under Item 14D and was covered by Item 14-I(1)(ii); the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, a product cannot be brought under an entry requiring use in a dyeing process unless such use is shown by evidence, and where competing classifications are reasonably possible, the construction favourable to the assessee prevails.

---