2005 (2) TMI 608

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Menon, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -  This is an appeal by Revenue, against the order-in-appeal No. 121/2002-Cus., dated 18-12-2002, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. This issue relates to the classification of modules (Main Switching Centre Hardware Upgrades) imported by the respondents. The original autho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore do not have any independent function, and cannot be treated as an 'Apparatus'. I find merit in the argument of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. I therefore find that given the facts of the case, the impugned goods called modules are more appropriately classified as 'Parts' under 8517.90 rather than ast 'Other Apparatus' falling under 8517.80. I therefore uphold the order of the Deputy Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5. On the same analogy the impugned goods, which are in the nature of complete set of PCBs, are only Parts and cannot be treated as Other Apparatus. 5. The learned JDR reiterated the grounds of appeal. According to the grounds of appeal the impugned goods are described as Mobile Telephone Equipment in the invoice. The various kinds of modules imported are meant for functions such as receiv....