TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assified for rate of duty corresponding to tariff item 8534 00 00 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The reclassification by the assessing authority against tariff item 9405 99 00 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was not acceptable to the importer and, the matter having been carried to the first appellate authority and upheld by order-in-appeal no 585 (Gr.VA)/2021 (JNCH)/Appeals dated 22nd July 2021 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II, the dispute is now impugned before us. 2. The impugned goods, sought to be classified against the tariff item intended for 'printed circuit boards', are 'printed circuit boards' that are metal clad and it is contended by Learned Counsel for the appellant that product pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (327) ELT 641 (Tri- Chennai)] has been cited. He contends that the opinion of the expert from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay had been discarded without taking into account the judicial ruling in Larsen & Toubro Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai II [2005 (189) ELT 439 (Tri-Mumbai)] on the relevance of such opinion. It was also contended that the onus devolving on tax authorities for substitution of classification, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Ferodo Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1997 (89) ELT 16 (SC)] and by the Tribunal in Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd [2016 (42) STR 96 (Tri-Del)], has not been discharged. 3. Learned Authorised Representative submits that the adjudicating aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... intended for use in manufacture of lamps. As far as the first is concerned, adoption of the classification which may be more beneficial, and, which, is only a claim, is not forbidden by law; indeed, the test of appropriateness is the responsibility of the assessing authority. As far as the latter influence is concerned, in Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd v. Union of India & ors [1985 AIR 1201], it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'To sum up the true position, the process of manufacturer for product and the use to which it is put, cannot necessarily be determinative of the classification of that product under a fiscal schedule like the Central Excise Tariff. What is more important is whether the broad description of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e worthwhile referring to the decision of the Tribunal in Ortho Clinical Diagnostics India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai [final order no. A/85710/2022 dated 12th August 2022 disposing off customs appeal no. 85868 of 2020 against order-in-original no. CC-VA/12/2020-2021 ADJ(I) ACC dated 2nd July 2020 of Commissioner of Customs-III (Import), ACC Mumbai] holding that '15. The effect of the proposition of Revenue, in support of the adjudication order, on the part of Learned Authorized Representative is that the impugned goods are not specifically emplaced in the claimed Schedules or in Schedule IV, V and V of the 'integrated tax' rate notification with consequent application of the residuary serial no. 453 co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de applicable to imports. It cannot supplant the responsibility thrust upon the assessing authority in section 12 of Customs Act, 1962. Moreover, the tariff that emerges from the recommendations of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council cannot, in any way, be deemed to interpret the classification to be adopted for assessment under Customs Act, 1962. 7. The lower authorities have taken the two rival entries and applied rule 3(c) of The General Rules for the Interpretation of the Import Tariff which is relevant at the heading, and not to the descriptions at the tariff item level. The provisions for interpretation required identification of the heading at the four digit level for the purposes of comparison between two rival claims. That ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the evidence that was produced on behalf of the appellants, the appeal should, nonetheless, have been allowed.' and in HPL Chemicals Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2006 (197) ELT 324 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that '29. This apart, classification of goods is a matter relating to chargeability and the burden of proof is squarely upon the Revenue. If the Department intends to classify the goods under a particular heading or sub-heading different from that claimed by the assessee, the Department has to adduce proper evidence and discharge the burden of proof. In the present case the said burden has not been discharged at all by the Revenue. On the one h....