9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1306 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - projectors - appellants claimed classification under CTH 85286100 as Projectors solely or principally used with Automatic Data Processing Machines while Department was of the view that the imported goods merit classification under 85286900 as they have some additional features - benefit of N/N. 24/2005 Cus. dated 01.03.2005 as well as successor Notifications 69/2004-cus. dated 09.07.2004 and 28/2007-cus. dated 01.03.2007. Held that - In the case of Casio India Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (12) TMI 379 - CESTAT NEW DELHI the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has considered the various features of the projectors similar to the ones imported by the appellant - it is settled in many other cases also that the classification of the goods are to be made under 85286100 as claimed by the appellant - classification of the imported projectors under CTH 85286100 as claimed by appellant with the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005 CUS and successor Notifications upheld. Payment of CVD - In the case of supply of goods meant for Educational Institutions, the Department has taken the view that the goods even in such cases are required to be charged with CVD on the basis of MRP - Held that - the projectors imported are meant to be used as warranty replacements and are not sold. Hence there will be no requirement of either affixing the MRP or payment of CVD under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Appeal allowed.
Issues: Classification of imported projectors under CTH 85286100, Customs duty exemption under Notification No. 24/2005 Cus., CVD payment on projectors supplied to Educational Institutions and as warranty replacements.
Classification under CTH 85286100: The dispute centered around the classification of imported projectors under CTH 85286100 by the appellant for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 24/2005 Cus. The Revenue contended that the goods should be classified under 85286900 due to additional features not typically found in goods under 85286100. The appellant argued that despite additional features, the projectors were principally meant for use with Automatic Data Processing Machines (ADP) and should be classified under 85286100. The Tribunal analyzed technical specifications like resolution, contrast ratio, and aspect ratio to determine the principal use of the projectors. Previous decisions were cited to support the appellant's classification claim, and ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the classification under CTH 85286100, granting the benefit of customs duty exemption. CVD Payment for Educational Institutions and Warranty Replacements: Regarding the payment of CVD on projectors supplied to Educational Institutions and as warranty replacements, the Revenue insisted on charging CVD based on the MRP of the goods. The appellant argued that since the projectors were not meant for sale but for supply, there was no requirement to declare MRP or pay CVD under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Citing a previous case involving set-top boxes, the Tribunal determined that in cases where goods are not sold but supplied as warranty replacements, MRP declaration and CVD payment were not necessary. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to ensure that CVD and SAD were paid based on transaction value for such consignments. Additionally, for projectors supplied to Educational Institutions, the Tribunal ruled that CVD should be paid only on the transaction value, not on the MRP basis, as they fell within the exclusion provided to Institutional Consumers. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders demanding differential duty and penalties, allowing all the appeals. The judgment emphasized the importance of correctly classifying imported goods for customs duty exemption and clarified the requirements for CVD payment based on the nature of the supply, whether for Educational Institutions or as warranty replacements. The decision provided detailed analysis and references to previous cases to support the final classification and duty payment determinations.
|
