Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1378 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - various machineries - Department was of opinion that the goods were classifiable under Heading 84729090 and under Heading 85258090 of First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Benefit of N/N. 6/2006 dated 01.03.2006 - Whether the goods are computers or not? - Extended period of limitation - no suppression of facts. Held that:- It is quite evident that all the goods under consideration are standalone machines capable of performing a specific function. These machines/ equipments can be installed in remote locations for providing host of services to the users as highlighted in the technical literature. From the description of the products and functions performed it is quite evident that the said machine/ equipments are for performing various functions which are part of ordinary banking functions such currency dispensation, cheque deposits, bill payment etc., from a remote location without any human intervention. Thus in the terms of the submissions made by the Appellant himself their products are quite akin to the ATM machines with a role reversal, i.e. instead of dispensing the cash these machines used for depositing cash/ cheques. Even in terms of HSN Explanatory note for headings 8471 & 8472 the classification of such machines would appropriately be classified under heading 8472. Items mentioned at Sl No 7 & 8 in table 1 namely I-Watch (Digital ATM Surveillance Solution) & Iwatch DVR (Digital Video Recording) - Held that:- the item the goods in dispute are nothing but digital cameras, which record the image of transaction being undertaken at the remote location. Once the image is recorded it is embossed with other details and then stored for retrieval and viewing either locally or through LAN/ SYSTEM. Since the prime function of these devices as explained by the Appellant is to record images, it is nothing but a digital camera and needs to be classified accordingly. Thus the classification of the said goods cannot be as Automatic Data Processing Machines under heading 8471, but would necessarily be in Chapter Heading 85258090. In view of discussions made above we are inclined to agree with the classification of goods as has been held by the Adjudicating Authority. Since adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand only for the normal period we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the Appellant. Extended period of limitation - The adjudicating authority is correct in making the observations to the effect that party had disclosed all the information in respect of the goods manufactured by them to the departments as early as in 2003. There can be no dispute in respect of the disclosure made by them. There can be error in claiming the classification of the products under 8471. Once they had disclosed the entire information about their products onus was on the department to determine the correct classification and determine the duty liability. The Department has failed to discharge it function for determining the correct classification at the appropriate time and demand the duty. For the said failure to determine the correct classification department can subsequently not resort to proviso to the Section 11A(1) for demanding the duty by invoking the extended period of limitation. Appeal disposed off.
|