TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al ) dated 27-8-1997. The question for consideration is whether the product manufactured by the appellant-assessee namely Dimethicone is classifiable under Tariff Item No. 3003.20 (as claimed by the appellant) or under Tariff Item No. 3910.00 (as claimed by the Respondent-Revenue). The Assistant Collector held that the product was classifiable under Tariff Item No. 3910.00. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal and held that the product was classifiable under Tariff Item No. 3003.20. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment has reversed the order of the Collector (Appeals) and has held that the product is classifiable under Tariff Item No. 3910.00. 2. For consideration of the question, it is necessary to note the Tariff Items. They read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3003.20 Medicaments (other than patent or proprietary) other than those which are exclusively used in Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, Homeopathic or Bio-chemic systems. Nil 4.1.6 Note 2(i) to Chapter 30 2. For the purposes of headings No. 30.03 : (i) Medicaments means goods (other than foods or beverages such as dietetic, diabetic or fortified foods, tonic beverages) not falling within heading No. 30.02 or 30.04 which are either :- (a) products comprising two or more constituents which have been mixed or compounded together for therapeutic or prophylactic uses; or (b) unmixed products suitable for such uses put up in measured doses or in packings for retail sale or for use in hosp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether it can be considered to be a Medicament. The Tribunal, without the aid of the Hico Products case (supra), came to the conclusion that the product is a Silicone in primary form. In doing so, it has recorded that it is not denied that Dimethicone BPC is otherwise a Silicone in primary form . It was submitted that this observation was not correct. It was submitted that it was always disputed that the product was a Silicone in primary form . However, we find that there is no ground in the Memo of Appeal that this finding of the Tribunal has been wrongly recorded. Even otherwise, it is a settled law that if a Court or Tribunal records something then that has to be taken as correct unless the party gets the same clarified from that Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct would not fall within Chapter Note 2(1)(a) of Chapter 30. With this finding of the Tribunal we are in full agreement. 8. Even otherwise, the law on the subject is clear. The Tribunal is final fact finding authority. Unless it is shown that there is something perverse in its finding, this Court would not interfere. No authority is required for this purpose. But as a large number of authorities are cited, we refer to them : Pragati Computers Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras [(2000) 10 SCC 150], Reliance Silicon (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector, Central Excise, Thane [(1997) 1 SCC 215], M/s. Asian Paints India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [(1988) 2 SCC 470] and Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Swastic Woollens (P) Ltd. Ors. [19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
