2024 (1) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssional rate of additional duty of customs at 12 % in terms of Notification No. 2/2008-CE (Sl. No. 63). After due process of law, the lower authority rejected the classification as claimed by the appellant and classified the goods under CTH 852869 and denied the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005. Aggrieved against the said order, appellants preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the order impugned herein rejected the appeal and upheld the order passed by the lower authority. Hence the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2.1 No cross-objection has been filed by the respondent-department. 3. Learned counsel Shri Rohan Muralidharan appeared for the appellant and Shri N. Satyanarayanan, learned AR appeared for the respondent. 3.1 The learned counsel Shri Rohan Muralidharan submitted that Data Projectors- Model X1220h DLP XGA Projector 270 3D imported by them seeking classification under CTH 8528 6100 at Nil rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) as per Notification No.24/2005-CUs. dated 01.03.2005. The product had the following technical/ product specifications: Description Specification Native Aspect Ratio 4:3 Contrast Ratio 3000:1 Brightness ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st Ratio- 2,000 to 4,000:1 After considering the technical specifications of the product, The Hon'ble Tribunal held that projectors are principally used for data projection by being connected to either a laptop or a desktop computer and are classifiable under CTI 8528 6100. DVDs can also be played from the DVD drive of a laptop and desktop computer through the projector apart from projecting 'power point' presentations, 'word' files, 'excel' charts etc. The Hon'ble Tribunal also observed that video compatibility does not come in the way of the projectors being classified under CTSH 8528 61 so long as the principal use of all such projectors with laptop and desktop computer systems is not doubted and as the sub-heading covers both 'sole use' as well as 'principal use'. Dell India Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, 2018 (5) TMI 1306 - CESTAT BANGALORE Native Aspect Ratio- 4:3 Native Resolution- 1024 X 768 Contrast Ratio- 2,000 to 4,000:1 After considering the technical specifications of the product and previous decisions in favour of the Appellant, the Hon'ble Tribunal ordered classificati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en to the technological test sought to be used by the Appellant. The Appellants themselves had marketed the projectors of having multiple use and he hence prayed that the impugned order be upheld. 4. We find that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd. [2012 (277) E.L.T. 299 (S.C.)] has examined the various test available for classification of goods. It held: "30. There is no fixed test for classification of a taxable commodity. This is probably the reason why the 'common parlance test' or the commercial usage test' are the most common [see A. Nagaraju Bors. v. State of A.P., 1994 Supp (3) SCC 122 = 1994 (72) E.L.T. 801 (S.C.)]. Whether a particular article will fall within a particular Tariff heading or not has to be decided on the bases of the tangible material or evidence to determine how such as article in understood in 'common parlance' or in 'commercial world' or in 'trade circle' or in its popular sense meaning. It is they who are concerned with it and it is the sense in which they understand it that constitutes the definitive index of the legislative intension, when the statute was enacted [see D.C.M. v. State of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h specific entry requires the product to be understood in the technical sense [see Akbar Badrudin v. Collector of Customs, 1990 (2) SCC 203 = 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.); Commissioner of Customs v. G.C. Jain, 2011 (12) SCC 713 = 2011 (269) E.L.T. 307 (S.C.)]. A residuary entry can be taken refuge of only in the absence of a specific entry; that is to say, the latter will always prevail over the former [see C.C.E. v Jayant Oil Mills, 1989 (3) SCC 343 = 1989 (40) E.L.T. 287 (S.C.); H.P.L. Chemicals v. C.C.E, 2006 (5) SCC 208 = 2006 (197) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.); Western India Plywoods v. Collector of Customs, 2005 (12) SCC 731 = 2005 (188) E.L.T. 365 (S.C.); C.C.E. v. Carrier Aircon, 2006 (5) SCC 596 = 2006 (199) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.)]. In C.C.E. v. Carrier Aircon, 2006 (5) SCC 596 = 2006 (199) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.), this Court held : "14.....There are a number of factors which have to be taken into consideration for determining the classification of a product. For the purposes of classification, the relevant factors inter alia are statutory fiscal entry, the basis character, function and use of the goods. When a commodity fall within a tariff entry by virtue of the purpose for which it i....