9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, classification of software, unjust enrichment aspect
Classification of Imported Goods under Customs Tariff Act: The appeal involved a dispute over the classification of a Tyre Scanner K2 system and software imported by the respondent. The respondent classified the system under CTH 9027.80 and the software under 8524.99, while the Revenue classified both under CTH 9031.80. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim, stating that the system had various functions beyond porosity checking and thus should be classified under 9031.80. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the respondent's argument based on a Supreme Court decision and allowed the appeal. The Revenue contended that the system was multi-functional and not solely for porosity checking, thus incorrectly applying the Supreme Court decision. They argued that Rule 3(A) of the Interpretative Rules was not followed. Additionally, they cited Rule 3(B) to support classifying the goods under 9031.80 as it gives the essential character. The Tribunal analyzed the technical literature and found that while the system had multiple functions, it was primarily used for checking porosity, thus upholding the Commissioner's decision. Classification of Software: Regarding the software, the Revenue claimed it was technical and should be added to the assessable value of the appliance. They argued that the software did not fall under the duty exemption for information technology software. The Tribunal disagreed, classifying the software under Chapter Heading 85.24 and exempting it based on a customs notification. They also referenced a Supreme Court decision to support that the value of software cannot be added to the value of machines. Unjust Enrichment Aspect: The issue of unjust enrichment was raised, with the Revenue contending that it should apply. However, based on the decision of the Madras High Court and subsequent Tribunal rulings, the Tribunal held that unjust enrichment would not be applicable to capital goods imported for manufacturing end products. Therefore, they rejected the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Order-in-Appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 1-12-2005 by the Tribunal.
|
