2006(12)LCX0174

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Versus

Real Image Pvt. Ltd.

Final Order No. 1239/2006, dated 4-12-2006 in Appeal No. C/36/2000

Cases Quoted -

Cine Land v. Commissioner -1999(06)LCX0154 Eq 1999 (114) ELT 0653 (Tribunal) - Referred [Paras 1,2,3]

Commissioner v. Cine Land - 2002(03)LCX0124 Eq 2002 (142) ELT A068 (S.C.) - Followed [Para 2]

Advocated By -

Smt. R. Bhaghya Devi, SDR, for the Appellant.
Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate, for the Respondent.

[Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. -

After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that, in this case, the dispute relates to classification of "DTS - 6D Sound Processor" under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as also under ITC (HS). The original authority classified the item under SH 8519.99 of the Tariff Schedule as against the claim of the importer to have it classified under Heading 84.71. The party challenged this classification before the Commissioner (Appeals) and requested for classification under a new entry viz, 9007.92 of the Customs Tariff Schedule. Accordingly, they also wanted the goods to-be classified under ITC (HS) Code 909711.02. This claim was accepted by the appellate authority in view of the Tribunal's decision in Final Order No. 1489/1999 dated 22-6-99 in the case of M/s. Cineland v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in 1999(06)LCX0154 Eq 1999 (114) ELT 0653 (Tribunal), wherein it had been held that DTS - 6D System was not a sound reproducing system but a sub-system of cinematographic projector classifiable under CTH 9007.02 and ITC (HS) Code 909711.02. The present appeal of the department is against this classification of the goods. The appellant wants restoration of the classification done by the original authority.


2. Learned SDR reiterates the grounds of this appeal. It is submitted that the item is not an accessory as held by the Tribunal in the case of Cineland (supra). On the other hand, learned Counsel submits that the classification of the goods is squarely covered in their favour by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Cineland (supra) and that the said decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court which dismissed Civil Appeal No. 154/2000 filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai against the Tribunal's order vide Commissioner v. Cineland-2002(03)LCX0124 Eq 2002 (142) ELT A068 (S.C).


3. After a perusal of the order passed by this Bench in the case of Cineland (supra), we find that the item considered in that case is no different from the goods under classification in the instant case. There is no claim to the contra in the present appeal either. In the circumstances, the submission made by learned
Counsel has to be accepted. The classification done by lower appellate authority shall stand sustained in view of the Apex Court's decision in the case of Cineland (supra).


4. The appeal is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

Equivalent 2007 (210) ELT 0673 (Tri. - Chennai)

Equivalent 2007 (080) RLT 0336 (CESTAT.- Che.)