9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 436 - AT - CustomsClassification - projectors used in conjunction with ADPS - purpose disqualify projectors from being classified under the specific Chapter Heading No. 85286100 - lower authorities held that for the goods imported by the assessee, to be classified under Heading 852869000 - 8528 69 00 being a residuary tariff entry, it was for the Revenue to lead an evidence that the goods imported by the assessee would get classified under this heading - absence of any contrary evidence to the evidence placed by the assessee before the lower authorities, Revenue s appeal was devoid of merits and needs to be rejected
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Classification of imported VT49G SVGA Projectors under the appropriate Customs Tariff Heading. 3. Applicability of Notification No. 24/2005 for exemption from Customs Duty. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay: The Revenue filed an application for condonation of a 4-day delay in filing the appeal. The learned SDR submitted that the delay was marginal and due to postal and technical reasons. The learned Consultant for the Respondent argued that the application was improper as it lacked the necessary authorization for condonation of delay, as required under Section 129E of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that the delay was marginal and likely due to postal delays. The objections raised by the Consultant were rejected, and the application for condonation of delay was allowed, enabling the appeal to be taken up for disposal. 2. Classification of Imported Projectors: The core issue was the classification of VT49G SVGA Projectors under the Customs Tariff Heading. The Respondent classified the goods under Heading No. 85286100, claiming an exemption under Notification No. 24/2005. The lower authorities initially denied this classification, suggesting Heading No. 85286900 instead. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for reconsideration, leading to a subsequent Order-in-Original classifying the goods under Heading No. 85286100. The Revenue's appeal contested this classification, arguing that the projectors were not solely or principally used with Automatic Data Processing Systems (ADPS) and should be classified under Heading No. 85286900 as 'Others'. 3. Applicability of Notification No. 24/2005: The Tribunal examined whether the projectors were principally used with ADPS, as required for classification under Heading No. 85286100, which would make them eligible for exemption under Notification No. 24/2005. The Tribunal found that the projectors were predominantly used with ADPS, and no evidence was provided to suggest otherwise. The Tribunal emphasized that in the absence of contrary evidence, the specific entry (85286100) should be preferred over the residuary entry (85286900). Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the goods imported by the Respondent were correctly classified under Heading No. 85286100. The Revenue failed to provide evidence that the goods could not be used with ADPS or that they should be classified under the residuary entry. The Tribunal upheld the classification under Heading No. 85286100, thereby allowing the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. Pronouncement: The judgment was pronounced in open court on 1-9-2010.
|
