Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (12) TMI 379 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (12) TMI 379 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Classification of imported item - Data Projector - classified under 85286100 with exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-CUS dated 01/03/2005 or under Custom Tariff Heading 85286900 as multi purpose projector to which the benefit of Sl. No. 17 of Notification No. 24/2005 CUS dated 01/03/2005 is not applicable - Held that: - the specifications of the imported goods are for the projectors which are meant for use as data projectors and not as video pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at - item in question is to be classified under Chapter Heading 85286100 for which the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005-CUS under its entry No. 17 is admissible. - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - Customs Appeal No. 59754 of 2013 - Final Order No. 55283/2016 - Dated:- 25-11-2016 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Shri Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate and Rupendra Singh, Advocate for the appellant Dr. S.K. Sheoran, Authorized R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

presented by Shri Balbir Singh, learned Senior Advocate and the Revenue has been represented by Dr. S.K. Sheoran, learned AR. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellant based on the appeal memorandum and written submissions mainly submits as under :- (i) The issue pertains to import of Data Projector where classification is claimed under 85286100 with exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-CUS dated 01/03/2005 (under its entry No. 17). This exemption is based on ITA Information Technology Agree .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed as goods principally usable with automatic data processing machine classifiable under claimed Tariff Heading. (iii) The projector imported by the appellant are next generation projectors which has got additional features such as S-Video port, HDMI port etc. However, the principal use is with data processing machine only. (iv) Projectors imported by them are used for educational and business purposes and they have not sold a single projector to a customer using for video or any other entertain .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ither 4:3 or 16:10 whereas the aspect ratio of video projector is 16:9; (b) the contrast ratio of data Projector is 2000:1 whereas the contrast ratio of video projector is 40000:1; (c) the luminosity of their imported goods namely data projector is between 2500 to 3000 lumes against 1600 lumes which are found in video projectors. These specifications are available from product catalogue attached. (vi) The issue of classification in question is no more res-integra and this Tribunal in the followi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vs. Vardhman Technology Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014 (301) E.L.T. 427 (Tri. Mum.) 4. The learned AR for the Revenue has reiterated the findings given by the lower authority. 5. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of both the sides. 6. Competing classifications for the subject goods are Customs Tariff Headings 85286100 and 85296900. The appellant prefers the classification 85286100 with the claim for exemption Notification No. 24/2005-CUS (supra) against entry at Sl. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

spect ratio of their import goods namely Data Projector is 4:3 whereas aspect ratio of video projector is 16:9; the contrast ratio for their import goods namely Data Projector is 2000:1, whereas the contrast ratio of video projector is 40000:1; and the Luminosity of their import goods namely data projector is between 2500 to 3000 lumes whereas video projectors have the luminosity of 1600 lumes. 6.2 From the literature produced, it appears that the specifications of the imported goods are for the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Ltd. vs. CC, Chennai reported in 2010 TIOL 401 CESTAT MAD. In this regard, the CESTAT s observations given in para 3 in the said decision are as under :- 3. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we find that as per Chapter Note 5 (C) and (D) to Chapter 84 the monitors and projectors, not incorporating television reception apparatus are excluded from being classified under Heading 8471 even though they are of the kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing sy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version