2006(05)LCX0197

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE

Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)

Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore

Versus

Ses Computers & Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Final Order Nos. 942-943/2006, dated 22-5-2006 in Appeal Nos. C/184-185/2003

Cases Quoted -

Cascade Systems v. Commissioner - 2006(03)LCX0123 Eq 2006 (199) ELT 0382 (Tribunal) - Relied on[Paras 2,4,5]

Advocated By -

Shri Ganesh Havanur, SDR, for the Appellant.
S/Shri Shreyas Jayasimha and Vivek, Advocates, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. -

Both these appeals raise a common question of law in facts and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The appellants had imported Pentium-II/Celeron Microprocessors. The lower authority had classified the item under CTH 8473.30 as parts of Automatic Data Processing Machine and not as Populated Printed Circuit Boards under CSH 8473.33 however, without granting the benefit of Notification No. 23/98-Cus dt. 2-6-1998 at SI. No. 188.

2. At the outset, both the Counsels submit that this very issue came up for consideration in the case of M/s. Cascade Systems v. CC, Bangalore [2006(03)LCX0123 Eq 2006 (199) ELT 0382 (T)], and this bench, by Final Order No. 693/2006 dated 27-3-2006, upheld the Revenue's contention for classification under CSH 8473.30.


3. The learned SDR submits that the cited ruling does not deal with the benefit of the Notification. In this case, the SI. No. 188 of the cited Notification is required to be gone into SI. No. 188 refers to CSH 8473.30 with description "Parts (excluding populated printed circuit boards) or the machines of heading 84.71". It is his submission that the item is required to be treated as Populated Printed Circuit Board and be denied the benefit of the above cited Notification.


4. The learned Counsel points out to the findings recorded in the above cited judgment. Both Counsels relied on the cited judgment of M/s. Cascade Systems wherein it has been clearly held that the item is not a Populated Printed Circuit Board. Therefore, they contend that although the citation does not refer to the description of the Notification but the finding given therein clearly discloses that the items are Parts of Computer falling under CSH 8473.30 and not part of Populated Printed Circuit Board and the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied.


5. We have carefully considered the matter. We extract herein below the findings recorded by this Bench in the case of M/s. Cascade System as rendered in paras 6 & 7: -

"6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. CH 8452 covers Electronic Integrated Circuits. According to the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Integrated Circuit is actually a small microchip that contains a large number of electrical connections and performs the same function as large circuits made from separate parts. According to the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, Integrated Circuit means:-

"An interconnected array of active and passive elements integrated with a single semiconductor substrate or deposited on the substrate by a continuous series of compatible processes, and capable of performing at least one complete electronic circuit function. Abbreviated IC. Also known as integrated semiconductor."

7. From the above, it is very clear that the term Integrated Circuit is a very general term, which actually represents a complicated electronic circuit etched in a single piece of semiconductor. Then what is a Microprocessor? A Microprocessor is also an Integrated Circuit. However, to be more accurate, it is a single silicon chip on which the arithmetic and logic functions of a computer are placed. To put it differently, a Microprocessor contains all the functions of the Central Processing Unit of a Computer. Hence, it is very clear that Microprocessor is also an Integrated Circuit but all Integrated Circuits need not be Microprocessors. The Microprocessor is specially meant for Computer. In the present case, in the Bill of Entry, it is clearly mentioned in the description of the goods that the item is a Processor. The term Processor and Microprocessor are used synonymously. Moreover, it is on record that the impugned items are actually Pentium-11 /Celeron Microprocessor. In these circumstances, it is very clear that the impugned items are actually parts of Computer classifiable under 8473.30. It is also seen that in the existing Tariff, Microprocessors are mentioned in 8473.30.10. Hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The impugned order is legal and proper. The impugned items are correctly classifiable under 8473.30. Therefore, we reject the appeal by upholding the impugned order."


6. From the reading of the above, it is clear that the item is not a Populated Printed Circuit Board. The findings clearly record that it is Microprocessor and it is also an Integrated Circuit Board. It is clearly held that it is a part of Computer classifiable under 8473.30.10. In view of this finding, the contention raised by the Revenue in these appeals that the item is a Populated Printed Circuit Board gets rejected. There is no merit in the revenue's contention. The item being part of computer is eligible for the benefit of the Notification 23/98 appearing in SI. No. 188 of the Notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also given a detailed finding to hold the item to be eligible for the benefit of the Notification. We agree with the said finding. There is no merit in both these appeals and we dismiss the same.


(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)

Equivalent 2006 (201) ELT 0562 (Tri. - Bang.)