AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1468
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Maharashtra. 2. Classification of imported goods namely, "Metal Core Printed Circuit Boards" (MCPCBs) used in manufacturing of LED Lamps, is the subject matter of present dispute. The appellants herein have imported MCPCBs declaring the goods as MCPCBs of different dimensions classifying them under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8534 00 00 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and claiming full exemption from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under serial No. 22 of Notification No.24/2005-Customs dated 01.03.2005. However, the classification claimed in respect of imported goods was disputed by the Department and investigation was initiated against various imports made by the appellants during the period of dispute from 02.05.2018 to 08.08.2019. On completion of the investigation, Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 09.03.2022 was issued proposing for change of classification of the imported goods under CTI 9405 9900 and for demand of duty under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest; and for confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) ibid; and for imposition of penalty on the appellants under Sections 112(a)/114A and 114AA ibid. The said SCN was adjudicated by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Rule 1 of the GIR provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff and any relative Section notes or Chapter notes and thus, gives precedence to this while classifying a product. Rules 2 to 6 provide the general guidelines for classification of goods under the appropriate sub-heading. In the event of the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GIR 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining Rules 2 to 6 may then be applied in sequential order. Further, while classifying goods, the foremost consideration is the 'statutory definition', if any, provided in the Customs Tariff Act. In the absence of any statutory definition, or any guideline provided by HS explanatory notes, the trade parlance theory to be adopted for ascertaining as to how the goods are known in the common trade parlance for the purpose of dealing between the parties. 6. In the above context, we find that contending entries for classification of impugned goods in the First Schedule to the Act of 1975 are as follows: Chapter 85: Electrical machinery and e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e classified in their respective headings; (b) other parts, if suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, or with a number of machines of the same heading (including a machine of heading 8479 or 8543) are to be classified with the machines of that kind or in heading 8409, 8431, 8448, 8466, 8473, 8503, 8522, 8529 or 8538 as appropriate; (c) However, parts which are equally suitable for use principally with the goods of headings 8517 and 8525 to 8528 are to be classified in heading 8517, and parts which are suitable for use solely or principally with the goods of heading 8524 are to be classified in heading 8529; (d) all other parts are to be classified in heading 8409, 8431, 8448, 8466, 8473, 8503, 8522, 8529 or 8538 as appropriate or, failing that, in heading 8487 or 8548." Further, the scope of coverage of the expression 'printed circuits' in Chapter heading 8534 has been defined under Chapter Note 8 to Chapter 85 as follows: "8. For the purposes of heading 8534, "printed circuits" are circuits obtained by forming on an insulating base, by any printing process (for example, embossing, plating-up, etching) or by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....876/2022 dated 09.09.2022 passed by this Tribunal in the case of Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (NS-V) reported in 2022 (9) TMI 1130CESTAT-MUMBAI, wherein the Tribunal has set aside the classification of MCPCB under CTI 9405 99 00 adopted by the department and upheld the classification adopted by the importer under CTI 8534 00 00. The relevant paragraphs in the above order is extracted and given below: "5. The lower authorities have laid emphasis on the entry in the rate notification pertaining to levy of goods and services tax (GST) as is applicable to imports within the confines of section 3 (7) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In this context, it may be worthwhile referring to the decision of the Tribunal in Ortho Clinical Diagnostics India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai [final order no. A/85710/2022 dated 12th August 2022 disposing off customs appeal no. 85868 of 2020 against order-in-original no. CC-VA/12/2020-2021 ADJ(I) ACC dated 2nd July 2020 of Commissioner of Customs-III (Import), ACC Mumbai] holding that '15. The effect of the proposition of Revenue, in support of the adjudication order, on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red identification of the heading at the four digit level for the purposes of comparison between two rival claims. That sought by the appellant herein is 'printed circuits' corresponding to heading 8534 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 while that adopted by the assessing authority is 'lamps and lighting fittings including searchlights and spotlights and parts thereof, not elsewhere specified or included; illuminated signs, illuminated name-plates and the like, having permanently fixed light source, and parts thereof not elsewhere specified or included' corresponding to heading 9405 of First Scheduled to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The specificity of description in the claimed classification is not anywhere matched by the description within which the assessing authorities have sought to place the impugned goods. Moreover, it is clear from the description that 'parts', if at all finding fitment within heading 9405 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff-Act, 1975, should not be specified or included elsewhere. In the light of the specific description, notwithstanding the addition of a metallic layer which does not find elaboration in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by Revenue, by relying on the order already passed in the same issue vide Final Order No. A/85876/2022 dated 09.09.2022 (supra). 8.1 Further, we also fund that the Tribunal in the Final Order No. A/8613786140/2023 dated 13.07.2023 in the case of Halonix Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-V have also held the issue of classification of MCPCB in favour of the appellants by setting aside the department's claim for classification under CTI 9405 99 00. 8.2 Furthermore, we also find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi Vs. Havells India Limited - (2025) 33 Centax 336 (Tri. - Del.), have held that MCPCB should be classifiable under Tariff Item 8534 0000. The relevant paragraph of the said order is quoted herein below: "4. .....When the case was listed on 14.10.2024, no one appeared nor any request for adjournment was received. Hence, we proceed to decide the case on merits. The issue for consideration before us is the classification of MCPCBs imported by the respondent assessee. We note that the Department has relied heavily on the IGST Notification 1/2007-I.T. (Rate)....