In a major relief to M/s. Acer India Pvt Ltd, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) upheld the classification of video projector and held that they are eligible for customs exemption.
The appellant filed Bill of Entry for clearing the goods declared as ‘Data Projector Model X 122H DLP XGA Projector 270 3D with carrying case’. The appellants claimed classification under Customs Tariff Heading ( CTH ) 85286100 as projectors of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system of heading 8471 and exemption from basic customs duty in terms of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus dated 1.3.2005 ( Sl. No. 17 ) and concessional rate of additional duty of customs at 12% in terms of Notification No. 2/2008- CE ( Sl. No. 63 ).
After due process of law, the lower authority rejected the classification as claimed by the appellant and classified the goods under CTH 852869 and denied the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005. Aggrieved against the said order, appellants preferred appeal before Commissioner ( Appeals ) who vide the order impugned herein rejected the appeal and upheld the order passed by the lower authority. Hence the appellant is before this Tribunal.
The counsel, Rohan Muralidharan who appeared for the appellant submitted that Data Projectors- Model X1220h DLP XGA Projector 270 3D imported by them seeking classification under CTH 8528 6100 at Nil rate of Basic Customs Duty ( BCD ) as per Notification No.24/2005-CUs. dated 01.03.2005.
The AR has reiterated the points given in the impugned order and stated that the product catalogues mention that the projectors are capable of projecting video from any video source viz video player, DVD player etc. It can be operated without being connected to ADP machines by virtue of USB, composite video (RCA), S-video ports and audio-in-ports etc. They are hence not solely or principally for use with ADP machines.
The counsel contended that the courts have held that the classification of consumer goods should be done by looking at the way in which they are understood in the trade, by the dealer and the consumer and that predominance should not be given to the technological test sought to be used by the Appellant. The Appellants themselves had marketed the projectors of having multiple use and he hence prayed that the impugned order be upheld.
A Two-Member Bench comprising M Ajit Kumar, Technical Member and P Dinesh, Judicial Member observed that “We are inclined to follow the line of reasoning expressed by the Coordinate Bench above and hold that the video projectors are classifiable under Heading 85286100, they thereby become entitled to exemption under Notification No. 24/2005- Cus. dated 1.3.2005 The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
