2007(10)LCX0136

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

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

HCL Infosystems Ltd.

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Final Order Nos. 1287-1289/2007, dated 22-10-2007 in Appeal Nos. C/115-117/2003

Cases Quoted -

Commissioner v. SES Computers and Technologies Pvt. Ltd.- 2006(05)LCX0197 Eq 2006 (201) ELT 0562 (Tribunal) - Followed [Para 2]

HCL Infosystems Ltd. - Final Order No. 323/2006-Cus. - Relied on [Para 2]

SES Computers & Technologies - Supreme Court Order dated 2-4-2007 - Relied on [Para 2]

Advocated By -

S/Shri R. Parthasarathy, Consultant and P. Vasanth, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent

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

The appellants had imported Intel Pentium Celeron, Microprocessors of box type and had cleared the same on payment of duty at concessional rate as applicable to Integrated Circuits under Heading 85.42 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. The assessments were provisional. The department issued show-cause notices proposing to finalise the assessments by reclassifying the goods as Populated Printed Circuit Boards (PPCBs, for short) under SH 8473.30 as also to demand differential duty on the goods. The original authority sustained the demand of duty after rejecting the assessees' contention that the goods were classifiable as Mircoprocessors, which were part of Automatic Data Processing Machines falling under Heading 84.71. The case of the assessees was that the Microprocessors were to be classified under SH 8473.30 as parts of Automatic Data Processing Machine and the benefit of concessional rate of duty under S. No. 188 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 23/98-Cus. dated 2-6-1998 should be extended. This case was rejected by the original authority, which held the goods to be PPCBs, to which the benefit of the Notification was not available. This decision was sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) also. Hence these appeals of the assessees.


2. After hearing learned consultant for M/s. K.C.L Infosystems and M/s. Nebula Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and learned advocate for M/s. Reddington India Ltd., as also learned JDR for the Revenue, we note that identical goods imported by M/s. SES Computer & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., were held to be microprocessors and the same as parts of Automatic Data Processing Machine, were held to be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 23/98-Cus. (S. No. 188), by this Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. SES Computers & Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [2006(05)LCX0197 Eq 2006 (201) ELT 0562 (Tri.-Bang)]. The decision in SES Computers & Technologies case was followed in the case of H.C.L Infosystems Ltd. (one of the present appellants) by the Tribunal in Final Order No. 323/06-Cus. in Appeal No. C/894/2004. Learned counsel representing M/s. Reddington India Ltd. has also pointed out that the civil appeal filed by the department against the Tribunal's decision in SES Computers & Technologies (supra) was dismissed by the Apex Court. He has also placed on record a copy of the Apex Court's order dated 2-4-2007 dismissing the civil appeal. Thus the issue is no longer res Integra.


3. Following the cited case law, we hold that the appellants are eligible for the benefit of the above Notification in respect of the microprocessors imported by them. The impugned orders are set aside and these appeals are allowed, with consequential reliefs.


(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

Equivalent 2008 (222) ELT 0052 (Tri. - Chennai)