TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l the major automobile manufacturers (OEMs) in India. The Appellant imports 'Liquid Crystal Devices' (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned goods") through Delhi and Bangalore ports from various countries which are used in assembling "instrument clusters". These instrument cluster consists of PCB assembly, stepper motor, mask lens, bottom cover, LCD (impugned goods) and screws. These inputs/ parts are manually assembled to obtain finished goods i.e. instrument clusters. The instrument clusters are sold to OEMs for use in motorcycles and cars to indicate the speed, fuel level, temperature level, etc. The Appellant places orders for the impugned goods on the foreign supplier, depending upon the model and the type of the vehicle for which the instrument cluster is meant. The impugned goods imported are pre-etched for the display requirements of the specific model of automobiles. The impugned goods are primarily supplied by M/s. Varitronix Ltd. Hong Kong. and M/s. Truly Semi-conductors, Hong Kong based on the specifications provided by the Appellant. The Delhi Zonal Unit (DZU) of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation into the imports made b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,816 2 Delhi Courier 41 88,41,093 24,37,051 13,96,690 10,40,361 3 Bangalore Air Cargo and Courier 605 24,96,65,570 6,89,47,209 3,75,28,699 3,14,18,510 Total 864 45,54,11,878 12,67,32,579 6,89,89,892 5,77,42,687 7. The Ld. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, was appointed as the common adjudicating authority for adjudication of demand for the 3(three) Commissionerates vide the show cause notice (SCN) dated 10.02.2014. 8. The Ld. Commissioner passed the impugned Order-in-Original No.BLR-CUSTM-000-COM-014-14-15 dated 30.07.2014 confirming the proposals made in the Show cause notice (SCN) bases on the following findings: (i) The impugned goods are customised parts of specific instrument clusters used in the manufacture of specific automobile models and are therefore "parts of automobiles" suitable for use solely or principally with the articles of Chapters 86-88 classifiable under Chapter Heading 87089900 or 87141090 (based on the vehicle for which it is designed) in terms of Section Note 3 to Section XVII; (ii) The impugned goods do not perform a specific function and is therefore, not a device exclude....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Appellant are by description covered under the Chapter Heading 9013. Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9011 8010 specifically covers all 'LCDs' within its purview by description. Thus, by application of Rule 1 of the GRI, the impugned goods are to be classifiable under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9013 80 10. Further, Chapter Note 2 of the Chapter 90 of the First Schedule clearly provides that those parts and accessories which are goods falling in any particular heading of this Chapter, the general rule will not apply and said article would fall in that particular heading only. Further, by application of Rule 3(a) of the GRI, it is evident that Chapter Heading 9013 and Customs Tariff Item 90138010 covers a specific item namely 'Liquid Crystal Devices (LCD)'. It is not in dispute that the impugned goods in question are LCDs. As the description of Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 90138010 uses the word 'device', it becomes pertinent to rely on the dictionary meaning of device which states that any component which is designed for a specific purpose is a device. The impugned goods can be treated as device as they are also used for a particular purpose which is driven by a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) was followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. Vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (386) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.)] and M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore [2023 (10) TMI 684 & 2023 (7) TMI 325-CESTAT Bangalore, to hold that that LCD Panels are rightly classifiable under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9013 80. Further reliance is placed on the decision of Varroc Engineering P. Ltd. Vs. C.C. (Import), Nhava Sheva, Raigad 2019 (366) ELT 170 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein the competing entries Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9013 and Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8708 were taken into consideration. It was held by the Hon'ble Tribunal that the "LCDs" are correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9013 80 10. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the impugned goods have been correctly classified by the Appellant under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9013 80 10 15. Learned counsel submits that the impugned goods are not classifiable under CTI 8708 99 00 or CT1 8714 10.90. For the purpose of classifying any product as Parts and Accessories of Motor Vehicles under Chapter Heading 8708, the conditions as mentioned in Section XVII and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Order-in-Original No. 283/2009 (AC SIIB), ACC dated 12.10.2009 reclassified the LCD panels imported by the Appellant under Customs Tariff Item CTI 9029 9000 as parts of speedometer. The said order was confirmed vide Order-in-Appeal No. 141/2010 dated 30.07.20. However the said Order-in-Appeal was reversed by the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Continental Automotives, (supra). This goes on to show that the Department itself is not sure about the correct classification of the impugned goods and have multiple views regarding the same. It is a settled law that department cannot adopt different stands on a particular issue. Reliance in this regard is placed on Opal Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 1992 (60) ELT 232 (Cal.). 17. Learned counsel submits that extended period of limitation is not invokable in the instant case as there is no suppression or mis-declaration on the part of the Appellant. The Department was aware that the Appellant is in the business of importing the impugned goods and using it its manufacturing activity. Since the question involved in the present case is purely relating to classification and interpretation of the Section Note and Chapter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al and allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant therein and held that LCDs imported by the said Appellant were classifiable under chapter heading 9013.80 as liquid crystal devices. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra after the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Secure Meters Ltd. case. He also submitted that LCD is used to display various information according to its application. The LCD, driven by microcontroller, is used in the instrument clusters manufactured by the appellants, which in turn displays the Main Kilometer reading, Day Trip Reading & Clock. It is his further submission that as per Rule 1 of General Rules of Interpretation, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the heading of any relevant section or Chapter Note. It is evident that LCDs are specifically provided in Tariff Item 9013 Moreover, as per Note 2(a) attached to Chapter 90, parts and accessories, which are goods included in any of the headings of said Chapter 90 are to be classified in their respective headings and accordingly, LCDs imported by the Appellant therein classified under Chapter Heading 9013.90 not under CTH 9029.90 as parts and accessorie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed mainly relying upon the decision in the case of Secure Meters (cited supra) which on appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the same and this issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Varroc Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC (Import) cited supra". "6. We also find that this decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been followed by the Tribunal in number of decisions cited supra by the appellant wherein similar products have been held to be classifiable under Tariff Item 9013. By following the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Secure Meters (cited supra) relied upon by the appellant and also considered by the Tribunal in various decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order classifying the said goods under heading 90299000 is not legally sustainable and we set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any." 19. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the finding in the impugned order and submits that goods were imported and a bill of entry under self-declaration was filed and clearance of goods was made under RMS do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[of the General Rules of Interpretation] that headings that are specifically provided, should be preferred over the general ones, is decisive. Thus, the revenue's contention that by virtue of Note 2(b) to Chapter 85, the goods are to be classified based on their principal or sole use is insubstantial because of the clear mandate of Note 1(m), which excludes Chapter 90 goods (which includes LCD panels). More importantly, Note 2 opens with the expression "subject to Note 1". This subordinates the entire subject matter in Note 2; it is only where the article is a "part" which acts as an accessory, that the enumerated portions of Chapter 85 come into play. Such an interpretation is plainly untenable....... ........................ ........................ 28. It is, therefore, clear that when goods are excluded from a particular chapter, the "pull in" through a note has to be narrowly construed, as otherwise, the basis of exclusion would be defeated, and the earlier note (of exclusion) rendered redundant. Finally, Secure Meters (supra) is decisive on the question that LCDs are not articles provided "more specifically in other headings", i.e., other than 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that the goods will be classified in Tariff Item 9013, which is the specific heading for these goods." 29. In view of the above decisions and the foregoing reasoning, the CESTAT's reasoning and conclusions, in both cases, that the LCD sets were under Chapter 90, Entry 9013.8010, is sound and unexceptionable. Consequently, the appeals have to fail and are dismissed, without order on costs". 21.1 The decision in Videocon(supra) was followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. Vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (386) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.)]. Further in the case of M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore [2023 (10) TMI 684 & 2023 (7) TMI 325-CESTAT Bangalore, it is held that LCD Panels are rightly classifiable under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9013 80. We find that the identical issue was dealt by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of CC, Cochin Vs. Amity Technopolis-2024 (390) E.L.T. 339 (Tri.Bang.), wherein it was held that 'LCD Panels' are rightly classifiable under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9013 8010. In view of the above case laws cited, it is clear that the impugned goods have been correctly clas....