2024 (10) TMI 837

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....06.02.2018 and 5570228/14.03.2018, declaring conformity with description corresponding to tariff item 8543 7099 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on the claim of deployment to facilitate reception of signals at the viewer end. The adjudicating authority, being of the opinion that the description corresponding to tariff item 8529 1099 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was more appropriate, determined differential duty of Rs. 12,73,497/- under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962, along with applicable interest under section 28AA of Customs Act, 1962, while confiscating the goods and imposing penalty of Rs. 12,73,497/- under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & GST (Appeals), Nagpur, b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arlier order [order-in-appeal no. NGP/EXCUS/000/APPL/391/18-19/108 dated 28th December 2018] was considered to be appropriate judicial precedent. Furthermore, it would also appear from the findings of the first appellate authority thus '26. The purpose of interpretation of classification in case of interpretation, the Hon. Supreme court of India has many a times has taken support of the theory of common parlance/ trade parlance. In case of M/s. Deena JeeSansthtn v/s. CCE Meerut the Hon. Apex Court has upheld the demand Under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 holding that; "However, instant case's clear finding of fact recorded in adjudication proceedings by applying common parlance test that said product used as cosmetic onl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is essential part for the functioning of Set Top Box for television (TV). Hence LNB is part which is solely and principally used with the Set Top Box for television (TV). This view also finds support from the finding recorded by the Commissioner Appeals (Customs Nagpur) in OIA NO.NGP/ EXCUS/000/APPL/391/8 dtd.28.12.2018 in case of the same importer viz. M/s. TEL on the same issue.' that the test of 'common parlance' had been misconstrued. 5. The impugned order has held that impugned goods, even if identifiable as separate articles, are non-functional except in tandem with other equipment. This is not a tenable basis for classification as workability is not a criteria to be adopted in such circumstances. The General Rules for Interpretati....