Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1995 (3) TMI 93 - SC - Central Excise
Whether "block boards" are to be classified under Heading No. 44.08, sub-heading No. 4408.90 as claimed by the revenue or under Heading No. 44.10, sub-heading No. 4410.90 as claimed by the manufacturers of block boards?
Held 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, any dispute relating to tariff classification must, as far as possible, 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 ISI 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 no indication in the Indian Tariff of a different intention.
Thus the expression "similar laminated wood" in Heading No. 44.08 as it stood from the beginning must be construed to include within it block boards of all kinds so that the amendment in Chapter Note 5 w.e.f. 19-3-1990 and thereafter w.e.f. 1-3-1992 merely clarified and made explicit that which was implicit in the heading throughout. These amendments were obviously made to end the dispute raised by the manufacturers by an express statement. Any further discussion with reference to the definitions in the ISI Glossary is unnecessary for the reason already indicated. All the appeals of the revenue are allowed while the appeals and SLPs of the manufacturers are dismissed
