Commissioner of Customs, Chennai vs Hozur Instruments P. Ltd.>2003(10)LCX0106

2003(10)LCX0106

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

S/Shri S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

Versus

HOZUR INSTRUMENTS P. LTD.

Final Order No. 876/2003 and Misc. Order No. 407/2003, dated 28-10-2003 in Appeal No. C/1026/1998

REPRESENTED BY : Shri A. Jayachandran, DR, for the Appellant.

Shri M. Suresh, CA, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. - The Revenue is aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal by which he has modified the Order-in-Original only to the extent of classification of the item “Colour Monitor” to be classified along with Thermal Imager System under chapter sub-heading 9027.50 which reads as under :-

“9027.50 - Other instruments and apparatus using optical radiations (UV, visible, IR)”

2. The ld. Commissioner has taken into consideration chapter Notes 3 and 4 to Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which lays down the directive principle that complimentary functions of accessories taken separately shall be merged with the functions of that component which perform the principal function and that total contribution of a clearly defined function should be the deciding factor for classification. He has also noted Note 7 of Chapter 84 which reads as under :-

“7. A machine which is used for more than one purpose is, for the purposes of classification, to be treated as if its principal purpose were its sole purpose……”.

He has not disturbed the classification on other items done by the original authority. The lower authority had classified this item under Tariff Heading 8521.90 as “Other” under the heading of the description “Video recording or reproducing apparatus, whether or not incorporating a video tuner”.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the item is not a plain video recorder and monitor item but it is working along with thermal imager and the system is based on optical radiation and used for measuring the quantities of heat. The picture taken by the imager are stored in tape and then played in VCR having a power supply unit which is a super VHS Recorder for detailed study to enable proper adjustment in the source of heat energy, thus enabling the control of the temperature of the kiln etc. The images that are captured by Video Recorder are analysed through LIPS software operated on an IBM compatible PCAT. The capability of the software enables to put in different shades of colour on the thermal mapping of the captured subject. The populated printed circuit board imported is meant for such purpose. A high resolution RGB linear colour monitor combined with the capability of the software distinguishes different thermal gradients of the objects stored in the Computer. This, thus maps out the thermal mapping distinguished by different colours, pinpointing out a hot spot. He noted the details available in the catalogue and the write-up provided by the importer and he noticed that each of the various items of the thermal imager system are intended to perform clearly defined functions separately and independent of each other. He noted that in terms of the Interpretative Rule 3(a) the classification under the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. In view of this, he noted that chapter Heading 9027.50 suits for thermal imager with A/C adapter changer alone is classifiable and not the thermal imager system as a whole, as claimed by the importer. He noticed from the pamphlets that RGP linear input colour monitor is a required equipment and the system is required to be classified as part of the imager system. He noticed that the thermal imager system with colour monitor as a single system classifiable under Heading 2097.50 and other items under the respective headings.

4. Revenue contends that the colour monitor is required to be independently classified under Heading 8521.90 and the thermal imager system under a different heading on merits. It is contended that the colour monitor does not carry out the function along with thermal imager and they are to be separately classified.

5. We have heard ld. DR, Shri A. Jayachandran and Shri M. Suresh, Chartered Accountant for the respondent along with cross-objections.

6. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not interpreted with the order of the original authority in classifying all the items on merits with regard to colour monitor which he has found it to be classfiable along with thermal imager as they constitute and perform a common function of measuring the temperature of the kiln. The section note and chapter notes have been applied for the purpose of classification. The imager does not function independently and it works only to record the temperature noted by the thermal imager. They are complimentary to each other and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals)‘s order directing the item colour monitor to be classified along with thermal imager is a correct and proper order and does not require our interference. There is no merit in the appeal and hence it is rejected. The cross-objections also gets disposed of accordingly.

_______

Equivalent 2004 (164) ELT 0287 (Tri. - Chennai)