1999 (2) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty under both Customs and Central Excise Tariff Heading 90.22. The Custom House issued a demand notice on 5-10-1987 proposing to classify the goods under 85.21 of the Customs Tariff and the Order-in-Original confirmed accordingly a differential duty of Rs. 3,80,295/-. The Order-in-Original has held that the goods are nothing but a TV Recorder or Reproducer and therefore, rightly assessable under 85.21 and hence it has upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Heard Shri Arvind P. Datar, ld. Advocate for appellants assisted by Shri Mani Sunder, Advocate, who submitted that the goods imported would rightly be classifiable under 90.22 for the following reasons:- (a) The technical literature available on record clearly shows that this is a co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itted that the monitor has even got accessories by which the results can be recorded in cine mode and played back. He therefore reiterates the findings in the Order-in-Appeal impugned. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions as well as the records of the case.We have also carefully perused the technical literature available on record. On a perusal thereof, we find that the system in fact consists of 3 special assemblies namely (a) The Image Intensifier Module, (b) The Specially designed Video Camera and (c) The Output Device namely Monitor. We also find that the catalogue makes it clear that in this equipment the Video camera is not one which is a general purpose video camera modified in this use, but instead, a specia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this is a normal Closed Circuit TV system. On the contrary, it is highly sophisticated medical equipment based on uses with even indigenously produced X-Ray machines. We also find that in view of this dedicated use of the system vis-a-vis the X-Ray machine, the Tribunal in the case of Ramakrishna X-ray Institute (Supra) had held the goods classifiable under 9022.90 instead of the Revenue's claim under 85.21. While coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal had similarly analysed the catalogue as well as the principle on which the entire system operated. We find that the product imported in the present case is exactly the same as was dealt with in the case of Ramakrishna X-Ray Institute (supra). We further find that this decision was again foll....