TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal reclassifies Serpent Eggs as Pyrotechnic articles for amusement, not fireworks</h1> <h3>TAJ FIREWORKS INDUSTRIES Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAI</h3> TAJ FIREWORKS INDUSTRIES Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAI - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 180 (Tribunal) Issues:Classification of Serpent Eggs as Fireworks or 'Other' under Heading 3604.90Analysis:The main issue in this appeal was the classification of Serpent Eggs manufactured by the appellants as either Fireworks under Heading 3604.10 or as 'Other' under Heading 3604.90. The Department classified the items as Fireworks due to the production of thick smoke and snake-like ash upon ignition. The Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) upheld this classification based on trade parlance and acceptance by other manufacturers. However, the appellants argued that Serpent Eggs should be classified as Pyrotechnic toys under Heading 3604.90, as they do not provide entertainment through acoustic, luminous, or smoke-producing effects typical of fireworks. The appellants referenced the Explanatory Notes of HSN to support their argument, emphasizing that Pyrotechnic toys cause limited effects and do not require a firing powder for ignition.The appellants contended that the amusement provided by Serpent Eggs is through the formation of snake-like ash, not through traditional fireworks effects. They highlighted the manufacturing process involving nitrated Tar Pitch mixed with Barium Nitrate and Red Phosphorus to create the snake-like ash effect. The appellants also referenced technical literature and legal precedents to support their classification argument. They argued that the mere sale of Serpent Eggs by fireworks traders does not automatically classify them as fireworks and that Pyrotechnic toys differ from fireworks in terms of entertainment effects.On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the common parlance understanding of Serpent Eggs as fireworks, supported by their sale alongside traditional fireworks, justified their classification under Heading 3604.10. The Revenue referenced Supreme Court decisions emphasizing classification based on popular sense rather than technical definitions. They highlighted the production of heavy smoke and snake-like ash upon ignition as characteristics of fireworks, supporting their classification argument.Upon considering the submissions and evidence presented by both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the nature and effects of Serpent Eggs upon ignition. The Tribunal noted that while the items produced snake-like ash and smoke, the main effect was the amusement derived from the snake-like shape, not traditional fireworks effects like sound or light. The Tribunal found that Serpent Eggs did not meet the criteria for classification as fireworks under Heading 3604.10, which required specific effects and firing mechanisms typical of fireworks.Ultimately, the Tribunal held that Serpent Eggs were appropriately classifiable as 'Other' under Heading 3604.90, as they did not satisfy the essential criteria for classification as fireworks. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between Pyrotechnic toys and fireworks based on their entertainment effects and manufacturing processes. The decision to classify Serpent Eggs under Heading 3604.90 was supported by the lack of traditional fireworks characteristics and the Board's circular on similar articles. The Tribunal set aside the previous classification and allowed the appeal in favor of classifying Serpent Eggs as Pyrotechnic articles for amusement under Heading 3604.90.
TaxTMI 