2006 (9) TMI 66 - AT - Customs

Classification- Assessee contented that Laptop computers are not classifiable as a Desktop computer and accordingly additional duty not applicable to it- Authority allow the assessee contention.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of Laptop Computers under Computer (Additional Duty) Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of Laptop Computers under the Computer (Additional Duty) Rules, 2004. The department initially classified the laptops as "CPU with Monitor, mouse and key board imported together as a set" and imposed an additional duty of 7%. The assessee contended that the rules were not applicable to laptops as they are distinct items with integrated components such as display key, key board, mouse, and modem. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the submission after considering the facts and arguments presented. The Commissioner emphasized that a Laptop Computer is a complete unit with integrated components, unlike a set of items brought together to form a computer system. The Commissioner highlighted the difference between Laptop Computers and Desktop Computers, noting that laptops have all necessary components within a single unit. Consequently, the Commissioner set aside the assessment order, ruling in favor of the assessee and granting them a refund of the additional duty paid.

The Revenue, dissatisfied with the decision, appealed for the restoration of the Assessment Order, arguing that Laptop Computers are similar to Desktop Computers, which are separate sets of components. However, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal after a detailed analysis. The Tribunal determined that Laptop Computers, being self-contained units with all necessary components, should be classified under a different category (CH 8471) and are not subject to additional duty under the Computer (Additional Duty) Rules, 2004. The Tribunal supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s comprehensive findings, emphasizing that laptops are distinct from desktops and do not fall under the same classification for duty purposes. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision in favor of the assessee, concluding that there was no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejecting it accordingly.