2018 (3) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R.) for Appellant Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for respondent ORDER Per : Raju This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order-in-original amending classification claimed by the importer and denying the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005-CUS. 2. Ld. AR pointed out that the respondent had imported Video Server and classifie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ates to video recording apparatus and thus the items imported by the appellant namely video servers are classifiable under heading 85.21. 2.2. Ld. AR relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Commr. of Cus. & C.Ex. Hyderabad-II Vs. Dell India Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (226) E.L.T. 367 (Tri.-Bang.) to assert that servers are not classifiable under heading 85.17 but are classifiable under heading 84....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e a device which is acts as an intermediary between the cameras and the network. In other words it receives images taken by the cameras and converts them into a digital form and feeds the same into the network. Revenue has heavily relied on the argument that the catalogue shows that the device has a record button to start an MPEG-4 recording. The Commissioner (Appeals) has clarified that the said ....