Tariff classification of inverter versus UPS turns on actual function and essential features, not mere backup capability.

Classification turned on the product's actual function and essential features as proved by the evidence. The appellate authority accepted that the goods were ordered and supplied as an inverter, and not as a complete UPS: they lacked the in-built battery and static by-pass switch associated with Heading 8543.00. Relying on the Board's circular and earlier Tribunal rulings, CESTAT held that a unit without the defining components and continuous power-supply capability of a UPS remains classifiable as an inverter under Heading 8504.00. The Revenue's demand therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's product was classifiable as an inverter under Heading 8504.00 or as an uninterrupted power supply system under Heading 8543.00.

Analysis: The product was found, on the evidence accepted by the appellate authority, to have been ordered and supplied as an inverter and not as a UPS system. The distinguishing features relied upon for UPS classification, namely an in-built battery and a static by-pass switch, were absent. The Board's circular describing the components and function of a UPS supported the view that a complete UPS is a distinct unit with continuous power supply capability, whereas the respondent's product did not answer that description. The earlier Tribunal and Larger Bench rulings cited before the Tribunal also supported classification of such equipment under Heading 8504.00.

Conclusion: The product was held to be an inverter classifiable under Heading 8504.00, not under Heading 8543.00, and the Revenue's demand failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification depends on the actual function and essential features of the product as established by the evidence and the applicable tariff description, and a product lacking the defining components of a UPS cannot be classified as an uninterrupted power supply system merely because it performs a related power-backup function.

---