Advance ruling on multifunction device classification displaces an unsupported used-versus-new distinction in assessment.

Tax classification of multifunction devices had already been settled by an Advance Ruling placing such goods under Serial No. 68 in Part-B of the First Schedule read with Item 22(a) of the notified Information Technology Products list. Because the governing entry did not distinguish between old or used MFDs and new MFDs, an assessment order built on that unsupported distinction could not stand. The assessment was therefore set aside to that extent, and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment in conformity with the ruling and the notified classification entry.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned assessment, which proceeded on a distinction between old or used MFDs and new MFDs, could stand in view of the Advance Ruling and the notified classification entry governing multifunction devices.

Analysis: The classification of MFDs had already been settled by the Advance Ruling Authority, which held that such devices fall under Serial No. 68 in Part-B of the First Schedule read with Item 22(a) in the List of Information Technology Products notified under G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 01.01.2007. The notified list did not create any distinction between old or used MFDs and new MFDs. In that situation, the assessment order, to the extent it misread the Advance Ruling and proceeded on a distinction not found in the governing entry, could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment order was set aside to the extent it misread the Advance Ruling, and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment in accordance with the ruling and the notified entry.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief against the assessment, but the dispute on tax liability was sent back for reconsideration by the assessing authority in accordance with the governing classification.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax classification has been settled by an applicable advance ruling and the notified entry does not draw the distinction assumed in the assessment, an order based on that unsupported distinction is liable to be set aside and the assessment redone in conformity with the ruling.

---