9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 379 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported item - Data Projector - classified under 85286100 with exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-CUS dated 01/03/2005 or under Custom Tariff Heading 85286900 as multi purpose projector to which the benefit of Sl. No. 17 of Notification No. 24/2005 CUS dated 01/03/2005 is not applicable - Held that - the specifications of the imported goods are for the projectors which are meant for use as data projectors and not as video projectors; therefore, goods would be covered by the description Projectors of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system of heading 8471, which is the description of the Customs Tariff Heading 85286100 for which the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005-CUS under its entry No. 17 would be available. The subject issue is covered by the CESTAT, Chennai decision in the case of Acer India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Chennai 2009 (11) TMI 931 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , where it was held that - item in question is to be classified under Chapter Heading 85286100 for which the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005-CUS under its entry No. 17 is admissible. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
Issues:
Classification of imported item under Custom Tariff Heading (CTH) 85286900, benefit of Notification No. 24/2005 CUS, competing classifications under CTH 85286100 and 85296900. Analysis: The appellant, M/s Casio India Co. Pvt. Limited, appealed against the order-in-appeal dated 12/07/2013, upholding the order-in-original dated 07/11/12 classifying the imported item under CTH 85286900 without the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005 CUS. The appellant argued for classification under CTH 85286100 with exemption under the said notification based on the Information Technology Agreement signed by India. The appellant contended that the item imported, a Data Projector, was principally usable with automatic data processing machines and not solely for entertainment purposes. They emphasized technical specifications such as aspect ratio, contrast ratio, and luminosity to support their classification under CTH 85286100. The appellant cited previous tribunal decisions supporting their classification. The Revenue, represented by the Authorized Representative, supported the lower authority's findings. The Tribunal considered the competing classifications under CTH 85286100 and 85286900. The appellant argued that the imported item was primarily meant for data processing systems, not for entertainment purposes. They highlighted technical specifications to differentiate data projectors from video projectors. The Tribunal referenced a decision involving Acer India Pvt. Ltd., where projectors principally used in automatic data processing systems were classified under CTH 85286100, entitling them to exemption under Notification No. 24/2005 CUS. The Tribunal also cited a similar decision by the CESTAT Mumbai, supporting the classification under CTH 85286100. Based on the arguments and precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant with consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, M/s Casio India Co. Pvt. Limited, allowing the appeal against the classification of the imported item under CTH 85286900 without the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005 CUS. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's argument for classification under CTH 85286100, supported by technical specifications and previous tribunal decisions. The Tribunal's decision was based on the item's principal use in automatic data processing systems, entitling it to exemption under the notification. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
|
