COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY Vs. BUSINESS FORMS LTD
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,BOMBAY
BUSINESS FORMS LIMITED
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)These civil appeals arise on orders of the customs, excise and gold (control) , appellate tribunal and they have to be allowed and the matters remanded for reconsideration by that tribunal because, principally, the tribunal has declined to place reliance upon the explanatory notes in the H. S. N. stating that, at best, these have only persuasive value.
(2.)This Court in Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Limited (JT 1995 (3) SC 207] has said:
"We are of the view that the Tribunal as well as the High Court fell into the error of overlooking the fact that the structure of the central excise tariff is based on the internationally accepted nomenclature found in the HSN and, therefore, be resolved with reference to the nomenclature indicated by the HSN unless there be an express different intention indicated by the Central Excise tariff Act. 1985 itself. The definition of a term in the 1si glossary, which has a different purpose, cannot, in case of a conflict, override the clear indication of the meaning of an identical expression in the same context in the HSN. In the hsn, block board is included within the meaning of the expression 'similar laminated wood' in the same context of classification of block board. Since the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is enacted on the basis and pattern of the HSN, the same expression used in the Act must as far as practicable, be construed to have the meaning which is expressly given to it in the HSN when there is expressly given to it in the HSN when there is no indication in the Indian Tariff of a different intention. "clearly, therefore, the HSN explanatory notes are entitled to far greater consideration than the tribunal has given there.
(3.)The tribunal has also said that the collector (appeals) had not relied upon the HSN explanatory notes. That was clearly an oversight of the tribunal because its order says, earlier, thus, "the collector (appeals) held that the photographic apparatus, as has been imported, for making printing blocks were excluded from chapter heading 84.38 vide explanatory notes to CCOM at page 1288. "
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.