CESTAT: Software Imported with Printers Classified Separately |

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi ruled that the software imported along with printers should be classified under Heading 85.24, separate from the printers under Heading 84.71. The tribunal found that the software and printers formed a package for retail sale but should be assessed independently as they were separately invoiced and priced. The tribunal held that the software was intended for the printer, enabling compatibility between the printer and the computer, and should not be classified under the same heading as the printer. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order and granting relief to the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Classification and assessment of software imported along with printer under different headings.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi addressed the issue raised by the appellant regarding the classification and assessment of software imported along with a printer. The appellant claimed the software should be classified under Heading 85.24 and the printer under Heading 84.71. However, the impugned order classified both the software and printer under Heading 84.71, leading to the present appeal challenging that decision.

The appellant's claim was based on Note 6 to Chapter 85, which states that media presented with the apparatus for which they are intended should remain classified in those headings. The appellant argued that the software was intended for the printer. The impugned order rejected this claim, stating that the CD ROM containing the software is intended for the computer to which the printer is attached, not the printer itself. The tribunal found that the CD ROM and software would be classifiable along with the printer as they form a package for retail sale, based on General Interpretative Rule 3(b.

The appellant contended that the software in question was specifically for the printer, as it enables compatibility between the printer and the computer, resulting in the printer printing materials as instructed by the computer. The counsel argued that the relevant factor is whether the software is for the printer, not whether it can be loaded directly onto the printer. The appellant also referenced Circular No. 51/02-Cus., dated 12-8-2002, to support their position, emphasizing that the software should be classified under Heading 85.24.

After reviewing the records and hearing the learned DR, the tribunal concluded that the media (software) imported along with the printers should be assessed under Heading 85.24. It was noted that the media was separately entered in the invoices and priced separately, indicating that it should be classified and assessed independently from the printer. The tribunal held that the order classifying the media under Heading 84.71 was not sustainable and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief to the appellants.

---