TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the specifications of the imported goods are for the projectors which are meant for use as data projectors and not as video projectors; therefore, goods would be covered by the description Projectors of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system of heading 8471, which is the description of the Customs Tariff Heading 85286100 for which the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005-CUS under its entry No. 17 would be available. We have also considered various other decisions on identical products in which the classification of the goods were ordered to be made under 85286100 as claimed by the appellant - It has further been held that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of various notifications as f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant as well as Dr. Ezhilmathi, representing the Revenue. 3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants are summarized below: i. The impugned goods, even though they are having additional features are principally meant to be used with Automatic Data Processing Machines. In spite of the additional features, the machine is rightly classifiable under 85286100 and will be entitled to the benefit of the customs duty exemption notifications claimed by the appellant. ii. The Revenue has wrongly taken the view that since the projectors are capable of being used in laptops/computers as well as with various other devices such as DVD players, digital camera etc. the goods do not merit classification under 85286100. The le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he classification adopted by Revenue under 85286900 may be sustained. 5. After hearing both sides and perusal of record, we note that the classification of identical goods have been the subject matter before the Tribunal in several cases. In the case of Casio India Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has considered the various features of the projectors similar to the ones imported by the appellant. We have also considered various other decisions on identical products in which the classification of the goods were ordered to be made under 85286100 as claimed by the appellant. It has further been held that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of various notifications as far as benefit of basic customs duty is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or principally used in an automatic data processing system of heading 8471, which is the description of the Customs Tariff Heading 85286100 for which the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005-CUS (supra) under its entry No. 17 would be available. The subject issue is covered by the CESTAT, Chennai decision in the case of Acer India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai reported in 2010-TIOL-401CESTAT-MAD. In this regard, the CESTAT's observations given in para 3 in the said decision are as under:- After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we find that a per Chapter Note 5 (C) and (D) to Chapter 84 the monitors an projectors, not incorporating television reception apparatus are excluded from being classified under Heading 8471 even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned data projectors imported by the appellants, we have no doubt in our mind that the same merit classification under SH 852861 and automatically become entitled to exemption under Notification No. 24/2005 as the same exempts all goods under the said sub-heading. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and allow all the 13 appeals. 6.3. Similar view has been expressed by the CESTAT Mumbai in the case of CC (I), ACC, Mumbai Vs. Vardhman Technology P. Ltd. reported in 2014 (301) E. L. T. 427 (Tri-Mumbai), where it was held that the item in question is to be classified under Chapter Heading 85286100 for which the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus (supra) under its entry No. 1 7 is admissible. 7. In view of above, the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
