9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Tariff Act, 1975 was more apt and to be adopted as mandated in terms of rule 3(a) of General Rules for Interpretation of the Import Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Notwithstanding the limited scope of the notice, the adjudicating authority has proceeded to classify the goods with reference to rule 1 of General Rules for Interpretation of the Import Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 besides touching upon rule 2 as well as rule 3A. There can be no doubt that monitors of every kind are covered under heading 8528 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and comprises four tariff lines of which two pertain to cathode-ray tube monitors while the other covers every other type of monitors including the impugned goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. Penalty u/s 114A of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- There is no finding on the manner in which there has been a misdeclaration or willful misstatement with intention to evade payment of duty. It would, therefore, be appropriate for the original authority to apply its mind to a specific finding on a manner in which section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 could have been invoked for imposition of penalty in the light of the proposal in the show cause notice. Thus, while upholding the classification confirmed in the impugned order, the dispute is remanded back to the original authority for this limited purpose. - HON BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) And HON BLE MR AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri N D George, Advocate for the assesse-app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred over the heading that provides a general description. The adjudicating authority held, in the face of claim of importers of these being for display of diagnostic images, that the imported goods are monitors despite finding that 11 the imported item is a monitor which displays diagnostic image from a medical equipment or instrument and it was claimed that it is only used to display clinical data and medical images. Medical displays are designed to have greater luminance stability and the reproducibility of images which is paramount to the radiologist in clinically evaluating a patient's condition. These display units are part of diagnostics systems where the radiologist views of different parts of the human body and the high resolu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture emerging therewith. 4. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III v. UNI Products India Ltd [2020 (372) ELT 465 (SC)] holding that Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) offers strong persuasive value that should not be normally be departed from. He also relied upon the decision in Commissioner of Commercial Tax, UP v. A R Thermosets (Pvt) Ltd [2016 (339) ELT 500 (SC)] holding that common parlance test is of relevance in a classification dispute and upon the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd [2012 (277) ELT 299 (SC)] on the importance of common parlance and holding residual entry does not prevail unt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribes the show cause notice as the framework within which adjudication should proceed and is particularly relevant when section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 is sought to be fastened. 7. There can be no doubt that monitors of every kind are covered under heading 8528 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and comprises four tariff lines of which two pertain to cathode-ray tube monitors while the other covers every other type of monitors including the impugned goods. It is not that the cathode-ray tube monitors were further divided as that connecting to, and designed for use with, automatic data processing machines and others. With the lack of distinction between monitors used with automated data processing machines and others being so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esort to rule 3 of General Rules for Interpretation of the Import Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is the enunciation that the heading claimed by the importer is not only not unacceptable as an apt, though not as much as the other, description of the impugned goods but also that concurrent proposal to invoke section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 would, for that very reason, not stand the test of law. The specific breach leading to confiscation under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 could only be a misdeclaration. The affirmation of rule 3 of General Rules for Interpretation of the Import Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 does not permit such a finding as the classification declared by the importer was not inapt but only l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
