TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1078
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udtouch' imported by the appellant from M/s Shenzhen Konika E-Display Co Ltd, China. Bill of entry no. 3843844/ 06.05.2021, for 90 nos of this item comprising varying configurations with value of Rs.76,24,692/-, and bill of entry no. 3846255/06.05.2021, for 6 nos of the item in knocked down (SKD) condition with declared value Rs. 6,13,482/-, were claimed for assessment at the rate of duty corresponding to tariff item 8471 4190 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with attendant exemption from basic customs duty, under notification no. 24/2005-Cus dated 1st March 2005, available to all goods covered by heading 8471 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The original authority ordered assessment to duty at 10% ad valorem corr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly with goods under heading 8471 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It was also pointed that the functions of 'automatic data processing machine' enumerated in note 5(A) in chapter 84 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 are performed by the impugned goods. He further contended that, but for this particular consignment, in all imports of theirs, as well as of others, classification under heading 8471 of First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 had not been disputed by customs authorities. 4. According to Learned Authorized Representative, the classification approved in the impugned order conforms to General Rules for the Interpretation of Import Tariff as the Explanatory Notes of the Harmonized System of Nomencla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tariff entry. There is neither intendment nor equity in a taxing statute. Nothing is implied. Neither can we insert nor anything can we delete but it should be interpreted and construed as per the words the legislature has chosen to employ in the Act or Rules. There is no room for assumption or presumptions. The object of the Parliament has to be gathered from the language used in the statute. The contention that toilet soap is commercially different from household and laundry soaps, as could be seen from the opening words of Entry 15, needs careful analysis. It is well, at the outset, to guard against confusion between the meaning and the legal effect of an expression used in a statute. Where the words of the statute are plain and clear, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted it with divine prescience and perfect and unequivocal clarity. Therefore, court would endeavour to eschew literal construction if it produces manifest absurdity or unjust result. In Manmohan Das v. Vishnu Das [AIR 1967 SC 643] a Constitution bench held as follows : "The ordinary rule of construction is the provision of a statute must be construed in accordance with the language used therein unless there are compelling reasons, such as, where a literal construction would reduce the provision to absurdity or prevent manifest intention of the legislature from being carried out."' and on the decision of the Tribunal in re Integral Computer Ltd that was relied upon by the lower authorities 5. The two rival descriptions are: 'automatic ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 hand, from the trade and market enquiries made by the Department, from the report of the Chemical Examiner, CRCL and from HSN, it is' quite clear that the goods are classifiable as "Denatured Salt" falling under Chapter Heading No. 25.01. The Department has not shown that the subject product is not bought or sold or is not known or is dealt with in the market as Denatured Salt. Department's own Chemical Examiner after examining the chemical composition has not said that it is not denatured salt. On the other hand,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by customs authorities pertains to 'monitors and projector' and, while the impugned goods may appear to have some of the characteristics of 'monitors', it is abundantly clear from the descriptions in the catalogue that these do contain a central processing unit and does operate on software that requires an input device which, though not be different from that for computers and other automatic data processing machines, functions on its own. Therefore, the goods in question cannot be said to be merely projectors or monitor and, thereby, renders recourse to heading 8528 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 to be inconsistent with the General Rules for Interpretation of the Import Tariff. In accordance with the judicial decisi....