TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h other technological features plays a persuasive role in determining its intended use solely and principally with ADP machines. The issue of classification of data projectors of various models has been examined by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai vide Final Order Nos. 1643-1655/2009 dated 09.21.2009 in the Appellants own case i.e M/s Acer India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [ 2009 (11) TMI 931 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that Looking at the features of the impugned data projectors imported by the appellants, we have not 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. Thus, the video projectors are classifiable under Heading 85286100, they thereby become entitled to exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. dated 1.3.2005 The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. - SHRI P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Rohan Muralidharan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri N. Satyanaranayanan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Original No. 21062/2013 dated 13.06.2013 (hereinafter referred to as OIO) wherein the submissions of the Appellant were rejected and the assessment of subject goods finalised under CTH 8528 6900. On Appeal the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order upholding the findings in the OIO. The learned Counsel submitted that the issue in dispute in the present case regarding classification of data projectors has already been decided by several forums in favour of the Appellant and provided a tabular chart of the same in their written submissions, given during the oral hearing, as given here under: Name of the Case Features of the Product in Dispute Decision M/s. BenQ India Pvt Ltd. v. ADG(Adjudication), New Delhi, 2022 (9) TMI 690 - CESTAT NEW DELHI Data Projectors Native Aspect Ratio - 4:3 or 16:10 Brightness (Luminosity)- More than 2500 lumens Native Resolution - 1024x768 1280x800 1900x1200 Color Wheel - RGB RGBCYM RGBW The Hon ble Tribunal observed that addition of multiple ports in the goods will not take aw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on ble Tribunal ordered classification of the projectors under CTH 85286100 as claimed by appellant with the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005- CUS and successor Notifications. M/s. Casio India Co. Pvt. Limited v. CC, New Delhi, 2016 (12) TMI 379 - CESTAT NEW DELHI Data Projectors Aspect Ratio- 4:3 or 16:10 Contrast Ratio- 2,000:1 Luminosity- 2500 to 3000 lumens After considering the technical literature produced by the Appellant, the Hon ble Tribunal observed 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 classifiable under CTI 85286100 for which the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005-CUS under its entry No. 17 would be available. He also placed reliance on the following decisions wherein it has been held that the Data Projectors are rightly classifiable under CTI 8528 6100. a) Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCCE, New Delhi, 2019 (370) E.L.T. 1774 (Tri. - Del.) b) CCCE, Hyderabad-II v. Aveco Viscomm Private Ltd., 2010 (9) TMI 436 - CESTAT, BANGALORE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the definitive index of the legislative intension, when the statute was enacted [see D.C.M. v. State of Rajasthan, 1980 (4) SCC 71 = 1980 (6) E.L.T. 383 (S.C.)]. One of the essential factors for determining whether a product falls Chapter 30 or not is whether the product in understood as a pharmaceutical product in common parlance [see C.C.E. v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved, 2009 (12) SCC 413 = 2009 (237) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.)]; Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd. - 2008 (13) SCC 349 = 2008 (230) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.)]. Further, the quantity of medicament used in a particular product will also not be a relevant factor for, normally, the extent of use of medicinal ingredients is very low because a larger use may be harmful for the human body. [Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Nagpur - 2006 (3) SCC 266 = 2006 (196) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]; State of Goa v. Colfoax Laboratories - 2004 (9) SCC 83 = 2003 (158) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.)]; B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals v. C.C.E. - 1995 Supp (3) SCC 1 = 1995 (77) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.)]. 31. However, there cannot be a static parameter for the correct classification of a commodity. This Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommodity fall within a tariff entry by virtue of the purpose for which it is put to (sic. produced), the end use to which the product is put to, cannot determine the classification of that product. Thus, while the common parlance test or the commercial usage test is generally preferable especially while classifying consumer goods but when the goods have to be tested for their sole or principal use, technological capabilities cannot be completely discarded. As per the Appellant the goods in the impugned case have a native resolution of 1024 x 768, native aspect ratio of 4:3 and contrast ratio 3000:1 and a pixel capacity of 1024 x 768 or less, which are normally not capable of efficient reception and projection of television or video signals. This along with other technological features plays a persuasive role in determining its intended use solely and principally with ADP machines. We find that the issue of classification of data projectors of various models has been examined by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai vide Final Order Nos. 1643-1655/2009 dated 09.21.2009 in the Appellants own case i.e M/s Acer India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. The impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
