2015 (8) TMI 492 - SC - Central Excise

Valuation - inclusion of value of software into the value of hardware - Classification of goods - CD doc entry subscription - Classification under sub-heading 8517.00 or under Chapter sub-heading No. 8524.90 - Held that - matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. 2006 (5) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , in favour of the assessee - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Interpretation of Chapter sub-headings; Applicability of previous judgments.

In this case, the respondent-assessee, a manufacturer of telecommunication equipments, initially classified their product as 'CD doc Entry Subscription' under Chapter sub-heading 4901.90 with nil rate of duty. Subsequently, three show cause notices were issued proposing a different classification under Chapter sub-heading 8524.90, demanding unpaid duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, which were upheld by the Commissioner. However, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the orders, classifying the goods under Chapter sub-heading 8524.20 with nil duty based on the judgment in 'Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Pentamedia Graphics Ltd.' The Supreme Court, referring to the precedent, dismissed the appeals in favor of the assessee, highlighting the applicability of the previous judgment in similar cases.

This judgment primarily deals with the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The issue revolves around the correct interpretation of Chapter sub-headings for the product 'CD doc Entry Subscription' manufactured by the respondent-assessee. Initially classified under sub-heading 4901.90 with nil duty, subsequent show cause notices proposed a different classification under sub-heading 8524.90, leading to a dispute over the appropriate classification and duty liability. The Tribunal's decision to classify the goods under sub-heading 8524.20, attracting nil duty, was crucial in resolving the dispute and favoring the assessee.

The judgment also highlights the significance of previous legal precedents in determining the classification of goods for excise duty purposes. By referencing the judgment in 'Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Pentamedia Graphics Ltd.,' the Supreme Court reaffirmed the relevance of past decisions in similar cases. The reliance on established legal principles and precedents underscores the consistency and predictability in excise duty classification matters, providing clarity and guidance to both taxpayers and authorities. The dismissal of the appeals in line with the previous judgment signifies the importance of consistency and adherence to legal principles in resolving classification disputes under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.