https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167486 When a tariff classification attracts a higher duty burden, the revenue must prove with reliable evidence that the goods squarely fall within the specific entry. Here, seized cotton fabrics were alleged to be furnishing fabrics under Item 19I(1), but the technical reports were inconclusive, the trade and witness evidence was insufficient, and the Department's assumptions about use or nomenclature did not discharge the burden of proof. The goods were therefore not established as furnishing fabrics under the specific entry, and the duty demand, confiscation and personal penalties could not be sustained. en-us Mon, 25 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2014 12:01:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167486 When a tariff classification attracts a higher duty burden, the revenue must prove with reliable evidence that the goods squarely fall within the specific entry. Here, seized cotton fabrics were alleged to be furnishing fabrics under Item 19I(1), but the technical reports were inconclusive, the trade and witness evidence was insufficient, and the Department's assumptions about use or nomenclature did not discharge the burden of proof. The goods were therefore not established as furnishing fabrics under the specific entry, and the duty demand, confiscation and personal penalties could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167486