TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Chandra, President And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by Shri Amit Jain/Ms. Nupur Mahashwari, Advocate for the appellant. Rep. by Shri R.K. Majhi, DR for the respondent. Per B. Ravichandran: The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Custom House, New Delhi. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the import and sale of Sony brand electronic products in India. They have imported goods describing as Hard Disk Drives classifiable under CTH 84717020 with a concessional rate of CVD applicable under Sl.No.255 of Notification no.12/2012 - CE. The Revenue objected to the said classification and claim for concession. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities followed the technical specifications and he supported the views recorded by the lower authorities. 5. After hearing both the sides and upon perusal of the samples of the impugned goods produced in the court, we note that the very same dispute came before the Tribunal in Supertron Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal observed as below: - We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. We have also examined the samples of impugned goods as well as smaple of removable or exchangeable disk drive during the course of hearing. We note that the classificiton of external hard disc drive assumes significance because of concessional rate of duty available to only hard disk drive not to removable or exchangeable di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usage. We have also perused the technical literature of the manufacturer of the impugned goods. Further, the technical opinion given by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, is directly on the issue. We find that in the appeal, the Revenue contested the factual findings in the impugned order. Guided by the expert opinion of the concerned Ministry and facts recorded in the impugned order, we do not find it fit to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The appeal by Revenue is dismissed. 6. On careful consideration of the present dispute and the decision of the Tribunal as affirmed by the Apex Court, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
