Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the display equipment was correctly classifiable under Heading 90.13 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under Heading 90.09 as a part of photocopying apparatus.
Analysis: The product in dispute was examined on its own description and function. It was found to be an equipment with an independent function, used to provide large or meaningful indication of input by converting electrical signals into visually meaningful symbols. There was no material showing that this particular product formed part of the photocopying machine, and the record did not contain any admission by the assessee that the display equipment was such a part. In these circumstances, the view taken in appeal that the product fell within Heading 90.13 was accepted.
Conclusion: The display equipment was correctly classifiable under Heading 90.13 and not under Heading 90.09, and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the assessee was upheld and the Revenue's appeal stood rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: A product having an independent function cannot be classified as a part of another machine merely because it may be used with that machine, unless the record shows that it is in fact a component of the machine and is more specifically covered elsewhere in the tariff.