2010 (11) TMI 898 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on Data Projectors classification

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the classification of imported 'Data Projectors.' The ... Classification of imported goods - Data Projectors - Lower authorities have classified such products under heading 9528.6900 while the claim of the assessee is under 8528.6100 - Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of ACER INDIA (P) LTD. VERSUS CC [2009 (11) TMI 931 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it was held that Looking at the features of the impugned data projectors imported by the appellants, we have no doubt in our mind that the same merit classification under SH 852861 and automatically become entitled to exemption under Notification No.24/2005 as the same exempts all goods under the said sub-heading - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues: Classification of imported goods under different headings, waiver of pre-depositThe judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore addressed the issue of classification of imported goods, specifically 'Data Projectors,' under different headings. The appellant claimed classification under heading 8528.6100, while the lower authorities classified the products under heading 9528.6900. The Tribunal considered the appellant's submission regarding a previous case where a co-ordinate Bench allowed appeals for the same issue and same products. The Tribunal analyzed the Final Order of the previous case, emphasizing that projectors used in automatic data processing systems fall under sub-heading 8528.61. The Tribunal noted that the impugned projectors were principally used for data projection by connecting to computers, qualifying for classification under SH 85286100 and exemption under Notification No.24/2005. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit was also disposed of. The judgment highlighted the consistency in classification for the same product within the appellant's case, reinforcing the decision in favor of the appellant based on the previous ruling.---