TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pheld. Payment of CVD - In the case of supply of goods meant for Educational Institutions, the Department has taken the view that the goods even in such cases are required to be charged with CVD on the basis of MRP - Held that: - the projectors imported are meant to be used as warranty replacements and are not sold. Hence there will be no requirement of either affixing the MRP or payment of CVD under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Appeal allowed. - C/21706/2014-DB, C/21707/2014-DB, C/21917/2014-DB,C/21930/2014-DB - Final Order Nos. 20562-20565/2018 - Dated:- 16-2-2018 - Mr. S.S Garg, Judicial Member and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Mr. G. Shivadass, Advocate - For the Appellant ORDER Per : V. PADMANABHAN The present appeals are against the Order-in-Original Nos. 03/2014 dated 26/02/2014 and 04/2014 dated 11/03/2014. The dispute pertains to the import of projectors by the appellant during the period April 2009 to April 2013. Tine appellants claimed classification of the imported goods under CTH 85286100 as Projectors solely or principally used with Automatic Data Processing Machines . They claimed the benefit of customs duty exemption und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is 2000:4000 which is different from that of video projectors which has high contrast ratio upto 40,000: 1 c) The aspect ratio of the projector are 4:3 as against the native aspect ratio of 16:9 for other video projectors 3.1 Learned counsel further argued that the classification of identical products was decided by the Tribunal in various cases to be under 85286100 as claimed by the appellant. He specifically referred to the following decisions: a. Acer India Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2010-TIOL-401 -CESTAT-MAD. b. Acer India Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore 2011-TIOL-359-CESTAT-BANG. c. Casio India Co. Pvt. Ltd. V. CC, New Delhi 2016-VIL-914-CESTAT-DEL-CU d. Aveco Technologies Pvt. Ltd V. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad vide Final Order A/30108/2018 dated 31.01.2018. 3.2. He finally submitted that since the issue is decided in favour of the appellant/ the impugned order may be set aside. 3.3. In respect of the projectors supplied to-the Educational Institutions (in the case of Acer India Pvt. Ltd.), the learned counsel submitted that such goods will be outside the purview of the Standards of Weight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty is 10% and no benefit of exemption notification No. 24/2005 CUS (supra) is available. 6.1 The main contention of the appellant is that item imported is principally used in Automatic Data Processing system of Heading 8471 and item normally is not for television or for video playing company engaged in entertaining business. The appellant also emphasises that aspect 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 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 be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar view has been expressed by the CESTAT Mumbai in the case of CC (I), ACC, Mumbai vs. Vardhaman 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. 17 is admissible. 7. In view of above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. Further we note that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in the appellant's own case vide Order-in-Appeal No. 457/2013 dated 26.03.2013 has allowed the classification of the goods imported by the appellant under 85286100 as claimed by them and the Department accepted the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of above discussions we order classification of the imported projectors under CTH 85286100 as claimed by appellant with the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005 CUS and successor Notifications. 5.1. Next we turn to the issue regarding payment of CVD. In the case of supply of goods meant for Educational Institutions, the Department has taken the view that the goods even in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
