Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2000 (12) TMI 394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rent, as most of the computers were designed to work only on DC current. Therefore he found merit in the assessee's argument that such SMPS are used exclusively to convert 220 Volts AC current into 5 Volts DC current and Chapter Note 5(b) implicitely cover units within the scope of Chapter sub-heading 84.71 and thereafter he gave a detailed finding subject to what Chapter Note 5(b) reads as; he noted that this reading implicitely conveys the meaning that the power supply unit, designed for specific use as part of the system was classifiable correctly under Heading 84.71 of CETA. He also relied on the orders of his predecessor in the appellants own case that SMPS used in computer were classifiable under Heading 84.71. 2. Commissioner d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnected and therefore they are not dependent on computers to perform their functions and hence not classifiable under 84.71 and he classified them under 8504. 3. The appeal was heard today when learned Counsel Shri Rajesh Chander Kumar, Advocate, for the appellants submitted - (a) They were trading in SMPS inasmuch as they were procuring it, after paying duty to the suppliers under 8471 and clearing it on debiting of the duty equivalent to under 8471, as per provisions of Rule 57F(ii) as it existed then. He relied on the Larger Bench's decision in the case of M/s. American Auto Service - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 71 (T) = 1996 (63) ECR 131 and to submit that inputs cleared as such for the home consumption, the duty will be leviable on th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....have considered the submissions and the material and find - (a) The Larger Bench's decision in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. American Auto Service, 1996 (63) ECR 131 (Tribunal) would bar the re-classification of the SMPS under any other heading than 84.71, when the inputs are being removed as inputs classified under 84.71, when it is admittedly the position that the supplier had classified it under 84.71 and Modvat credit was obtained of the duty paid under 84.71. (b) We find that the grounds taken by the Commissioner and thereafter the finding arrived at by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) do not find any flaw or fault in the findings of the Asstt. Collector that the item is used exclusively and is meant to convert AC curren....