2012(02)LCX0057
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T) and Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J)
Diamond Electricals Ltd.
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Final Order Nos. 102-104/2012, dated 2-2-2012 in Appeal Nos. C/274/2004 and C/179 and 595/2005
Cases Quoted -
Asia Engineering Co. v. Collector - 1996(11)LCX0062 Eq 1997 (092) ELT 0066 (Tribunal) - Distinguished [Para 5]
Advocated By -
Shri R. Hari, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri T.H. Rao, SDR, for the Respondent.
[Order per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. -
Heard both sides.
2. In these three appeals, the dispute is regarding the classification of e following four items imported by the appellants :-
(a) Indicating panel 4 zone with LCD
(b) CTEC indicating panel with LCD 1 Loop Apollo Protocol (Non-expandable)
(c) Indicating panel with LCD Repeater
(d) Ionization Smoke Detector (not relevant to Appeal No. C/274/2004)
3 As far as the first three items are concerned, these have been classified by the authorities below as fire alarm under Heading 8531 10 20 applying Interpretative Rule 2 which permits incomplete instrument to be classified as the complete instrument provided it has the essential characteristics of the latter. However, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that these are appropriately classifiable under Heading 8531 20 00 which is a specific heading for "indicator panels incorporating liquid crystal devices (LCD) or light emitting diodes (Lift))". He also contends that no recourse can be taken to Interpretative Rule 2 when there is a specific entry in the Tariff according to which any goods can be classified applying Interpretative Rule 1 itself. We find merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants. In fact, Heading 8531 20 00 comes under the broad category of electric sound or visual signaling apparatus (for example, indicator panels) as specified against the main heading 8531 itself and therefore, we allow the appeal of the appellants in respect of the first three items holding these to be classifiable under Heading 853110 20.
4 As regards ionization smoke detectors, the appellants have claimed classification under Heading 9027 80 10. We find that the Jpwer appellate authority has passed a detailed order in this regard with the following observation :-
"The basic features and principle on which it operates as given in the product pamphlet is given below for easy understating.
"XPC95. Ionization Smoke Detector. - Particularly useful for detecting clean burning fires caused by materials which produce small smoke particles, the XPC95 Ionization Detector operates on the dual chamber, single source principle. Air is irradiated to produce ions that travels to the positive and negative electrodes and create a current flow in the chambers. Smoke entering the outer chamber causes a drop in the current flow and an increase in the voltage measured at the junction between the outer and inner chambers."
The ionization smoke detector contains Americannum, which is a radioactive substance. The process of ionization itself is based on principle of radiation and that radiation has to be naturally among one of the alpha, beta or gamma rays. The product is described by the appellant in their pamphlet as a smoke alarm and not as an instrument or apparatus for smoke analysis. Hence based on the exclusion notes given in Chapter notes to Chapter 85.31 and specific notes appended to Chapter 90.22, the above said goods ill be squarely covered under CTH 9022.90."
5. On the above basis he has also distinguished the decision in the case of M/s. Asia Engineering Co. v. C.C., Bombay - 1997 (092) ELT 66. We are of the view that for the reasoning given by the lower appellate authority, the ionized smoke detectors are appropriately classifiable under Heading 9022 90 and not under Heading 9027 80 10 as claimed by the appellants. We, therefore, reject the appeals of the appellants in respect of the ionized smoke detector upholding the impugned orders.
6. In the light of our findings as above, Appeal No. C/274/2004 is al-lowed and Appeal Nos. C/179/2005 and C/595/2005 are partly allowed in the above terms.
(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 2-2-2012)
Equivalent 2012 (280) ELT 0137 (Tri. - Chennai)