TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Customs duty of Rs.8,55,011/- along with interest and imposition of equal amount of penalty (impugned order). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported Facsimile machines and parts from M/s Panasonic Asia Pacific, Singapore during the years 2007-08 and 2008-09. They have filed Bills of Entry declaring the goods to be falling under CTH 8443 3260 claiming exemption from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Notification No.24/2005-Customs dt.01.03.2005. DRI has investigated the said imports and issued SCN demanding differential duty alleging that the Facsimile machine is classifiable under CTH 8443 3970 and parts are classifiable under CTH 8443 9960 and are not eligible for exemption from BCD. On adjudication, the adjudica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; -- Parts and accessories: 8443 99 - Other -- Parts and accessories of goods of sub-heading 8443 31, 8443 32 8443 99 59 -- Others 8443 99 60 -- Parts and accessories of goods of sub-heading 8443 39 5. He has submitted that from the above table, it is clear that the classification would depend on whether the facsimile machine is capable of connecting to automatic data processing machine or to a network or not and with the help of external device of VBC of ATA, the said facsimile machine can be networked. Thus, the charge of mis-classification of said specified facsimile machines that the same are not network enabled is mis-conceived and without any substance. In other words, he has sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atic Data Processor. He has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of UOI Vs Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd [1992 (58) ELT 38 (Bom)] in support of his contention that burden of proof is on the department that particular good falls within a particular item of Tariff. Hence the imported machines are rightly classifiable under CTH 8443 3260 and parts under CTH 8443 32 90. 7. He has further submitted that appellants have filed Bills of entry declaring the goods as Facsimile machine falling under chapter sub heading 8443 3260 claiming exemption from basic customs duty under Notification No.24/2005-customs dt.1.3.2005, as amended. The said goods were assessed by the Department and an out of charge was given, after ph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of Pearl Enterprises Vs CC (Port), Kolkata [2006 (203) ELT 71 (Tri-Kolkata)]. Accordingly, he has prayed that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) may be set aside with consequential relief. 10. Learned AR has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 11. Heard both sides and perused the records. 12. The issue involved in the present appeal relates to classification of facsimile machines and their parts imported by the appellant during the period 2007-08 and 2008-09. The appellants classified the goods under CTH 8443 3260 claiming the exemption from BCD under Notification No.24/2005Cus dt.01.03.2005, whereas, the department has proposed classification under CTH 8443 3970 for facsimile machines....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ute essentially relates to interpretation of tariff entries and technical capability of the machines, which is a matter of classification or interpretation of law. In such circumstances, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked, as held by Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of CC & CE Vs Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (supra). 17. We also find that the Circular No.11/2008-Cus dt.01.07.2008 relied upon by the department could be applied only prospectively, particularly when it imposes a burden adverse to the importer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HM Bags Manufacturer Vs CCE (supra) has held that circulars which are adverse to the assessee cannot be applied retrospectively. Further, the Coordinate Bench at Mu....