Printers not capable of being Connected to ADP or Network are also Classifiable as 'Inkjet Printers': CESTAT [Read Order]

The Mumbai bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that printers not capable of being connected to Automatic Data Processing (ADP) or network are also classifiable as 'Inkjet printers'.

The appellant, M/s. Monotech System Ltd has imported a digital inkjet printer and filed for clearance at nil rate of duty available to goods conforming to tariff item 8443 3250 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and upon protest against the revision of classification, speaking order was issued by assessing authority to fasten duty liability on them.

Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the determination of classification of imported goods against tariff item 8443 3910 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 by the assessing authority with the consequent liability of duties of customs. Hence, the appeal filed before CESTAT.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that in a previous import at Chennai that had undergone similar revision, the Tribunal, inMonotech Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner of Custom, had upheld the correctness of classification declared by the appellant.

The Coram of Mr. C J Mathew, Member (Technical) and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) has observed that the distinction between ‘inkjet printer’ as claimed by appellant, and ‘ink-jet printing machine’ as re-assessed by the assessing authorities, is the crux of the dispute. The Board’s Circular No. 11/2008-Cus clearly states that large format printers which satisfy the conditions of connectability as given in HSN Explanatory Notes are to be classified under Tariff Heading 8443 32 50 as “Inkjet Printers”. Hence, the observation of authority that the goods are not capable of being connected to ADP or network and therefore are not classifiable under 8443 32 50 is against the clarification given by the Board.

The Tribunal has held that “in view of the classification of the same product by the Tribunal in a dispute of the very same importer referred to supra, the classification adopted by the original authorities and sustained in the impugned order does not survive. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order”.

AdvocateMr. Derric Sam appeared for the appellant and Mr. Ramesh Kumar, appeared for the respondent.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.