2008(03)LCX0142

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE

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

Wipro Ltd.

Versus

Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai

Final Order No. 213/2008, dated 10-3-2008 in Appeal No. C/340/2005

Cases Quoted -

Collector v. Wipro Information Technology - 1999 (030) RLT 0905 (Tribunal) - Relied on [Para 4.2]

Advocated By -

Shri K. Krishnamurthy, Consultant, for the Appellant.
Shri K. Sambi Reddi, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -

This appeal arises from Or-der-in-Appeal No. 364/2005 dated 29-4-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai.


2. The appeal relates to classification of the impugned goods. The appellant imported electronic panels and claimed classification under 8473.30 CTH. However, according to the department, the classification should be under 8537.10.


3. Shri K. Krishnamurthy, learned Consultant appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddi, learned JDR for the Revenue.


4. The impugned goods are known as patch panel. The appellants have submitted that the patch panel is used for connecting the hardware normally found in the wiring or telecommunications closet consisting of row or rows of ports using patch cables to connect horizontal or backbone cables to an arrangement of fixed connectors to form the cross connections or inter, connection. In a LAN, the electronic panel also known as the patch panel connects the outside lines connecting the internet to the network computer. In these circumstances, it was argued that the classification under 8473 is proper. It was urged that these goods were specifically designed for use as an accessory for automatic data processing machines viz., computers falling under 8471 and therefore, rightly classifiable under 8473.30. However, the department's contention is that the impugned goods are covered under CTH 8537 which reads as follows :

"Boards, panels, consoles, desks, cabinets and other bases, equipped with two or more apparatus of heading 85.35 or 85.36, for electric control or the distribution of electricity, including those incorporation instruments or apparatus of Chapter 90, and numerical control apparatus other than switching apparatus of heading 85.17".

4.1 On a careful consideration of the matter, we find that the impugned items are actually used to connect the different hardware which fall under 84.71. Moreover, these cables transmit information and data, etc., and they are not used for electric control or distribution of electricity. This point has been ignored by the lower authorities. We are in agreement with the appellant that the impugned items do not perform the function, which are covered under CTH 8537.10. In this connection, Chapter Heading 8473 reads as follows :

"Parts and accessories (other than covers, carrying cases and the like) suitable for use solely or principally with machines of headings 8469 to 84.72. 8473 30 parts and accessories of the machines of heading 84.71".

Again heading 84.71 reads :

"Automatic date processing machines and units thereof; Magnetic or optical readers, machines for transcribing date on to data media in coded form and machines for processing such data, not elsewhere specified or included".

4.2 The appellants have made out a strong case that these items which are imported are specifically designed for use as an accessory in computer systems which are classifiable under 84.71. Chapter Heading 8537.10 covers the items which are used for electric control or for distribution of electricity, which is not the function of the impugned items. Our attention was also invited the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Wipro Information Technology reported in 1999 (030) RLT 0905 (CEGAT) which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that "cable assembly" specifically designed for use in computer are not general purpose cable assembly and are classifiable under Heading 8473 CETA, 1985 and not under Heading 8544 ibid. The ratio of this decision is clearly applicable to this case. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the impugned order, we set aside the same and allow the appeal with consequential relief.

(Pronounced in open Court on 10-3-2008)

Equivalent 2008 (227) ELT 0261 (Tri. - Bang.)

Equivalent 2008 (131) ECC 0019

Equivalent 2008 (157) ECR 0019 (Tri.-Bangalore)