2019 (3) TMI 1998 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of imported goods - removable or exchangeable disc drives - classifiable under heading no. 84717020 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act 1975 to was revised to heading no. 84717030 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act 1975? - N/N. 06/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 and N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17th March 2012 - demand of differential duty - HELD THAT - It was held in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW DELHI VERSUS SUPERTRON ELECTRONICS P. LTD. 2017 (1) TMI 1529 - CESTAT NEW DELHI that Admittedly the imported items are hard disk drive and are meant for external use with computer or lap-top as plug-in device. They are portable hard disk drive. The contention of the Revenue that they are only removable or exchangeable disk drive is not factually or technically correct. The classification of the impugned goods as in SUPERTRON ELECTRONICS P. LTD. decided in cannot be deviated from - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Exemption under notification no. 06/2006-CE and notification no. 12/2012-CE - Differential duty demand.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the classification of goods declared as 'removable or exchangeable disc drives' under heading no. 84717020 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which was revised to heading no. 84717030. This revision led to the denial of exemption under notification no. 06/2006-CE and notification no. 12/2012-CE, resulting in a demand for differential duty. The Tribunal considered various precedents, including Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Supertron Electronics P Ltd and Redington (India) Ltd v. Commissioner of customs (Import) ACC, Mumbai, where expert opinions were accorded significant weight. The Tribunal also referenced the decision in Manoj Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs (Import) ACC, Mumbai, which supported the expert opinion of the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India as the final authority on the matter.

The Authorized Representative relied on the decision in Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Cus.(Import), ACC, Mumbai, which had decided on alternative classification. As the appeal against this decision was withdrawn before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was argued that the deemed affirmation by the Supreme Court should not be ignored. The Tribunal examined all arguments and judgments presented by both sides. After careful consideration, the Tribunal concluded that the classification of the impugned goods, as established in the previous cases such as Supertron Electronics P Ltd and Redington (India) Ltd, should be upheld. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, ruling in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of relevant precedents and legal arguments. By aligning with the classification established in previous cases, the Tribunal provided a clear and reasoned judgment in favor of the appellant, ultimately setting aside the order that had led to the demand for differential duty.