9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imed by the Appellants. 2. Shri Harish Chandra, learned Advocate, submitted that signal decoder is used by a Cable Operator for distributing the satellite signals; that dish antenna collects the satellite signals, concentrates them and reflects the same to the feedhorn; that as the signals collected by the feedhorn are weak, the low-noise-block down converter (LNB) is used for amplification and frequency down conversion of such weak signals in order to feed a usuable signal to the satellite receiver; that satellite receiver is connected to the modulator which modulates the signal frequency and with the help of channel combiners, distribution amplifiers, channel converters and top off boxes, the signals are distributed to the subscriber f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Canadian Inter National Trade Tribunal has classified the decoder under Heading 8543.90.95 of the Canadian Customs Tariff; that as per Bill of Entry No. 47301, dated 23-7-1997, Madras Customs House has classified the signal decoder under Sub-heading No. 8543.90 only. Finally he submitted that as per Rule 3(C) of the Rules for the Interpretation of the Schedule, when goods cannot be classified by reference to Rule 3(a) or (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order and contended that applying the Rules, the impugned goods is classifiable under sub heading 8543.90. He also placed reliance on the decision in Manisha Pharma Plasto Pvt . Ltd v. U.O.I., 1999 (112) E.L.T. 22 (Del.) wherein it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 4 of Interpretative Rules according to which goods shall be classified under the heading appropriate to the goods to which they are most akin and submitted that accordingly signal decoder will be classifiable under Sub-heading 8528.12 of C.T.A. In reply, the learned Advocate placed reliance on the decision in the case of Poulose and Mathen v. CCE, 1997 (90) E.L.T. 264 (S.C.) wherein it was held that where two opinions are possible, assesee should be given benefit of doubt and the opinion favourable to it should be given effect to. He also referred to CCE Bombay v. KWH Heliplastics Ltd. 1998 (97) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) in which it was held that classification of goods under particular heading depends upon description, purpose and use of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % - Other machines and apparatus: 8543.81 -- Proximity cards and tags 30% 8543.89 -- Other 30% 8543.90 -- Parts 20% 5. The Learned Advocate for the Appellants has vehemently contended that the impugned goods cannot be treated as satellite receiver as it does not receive any signals. According to him, the decoder is not a reception apparatus and is not capable of receiving signals. He has relied upon the classification at Madras, classification ordered by Canadian Tribunal and ITC-HS classification published by the Ministry of Commerce for the purpose of Import-Export Policy. It has not been dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
