1997(08)LCX0178

IN THE CEGAT, EASTERN ZONAL BENCH, CALCUTTA

Shri P.C. Jain, Member (T) and Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)

INDU AGENCIES

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA

Order No. A/952/Cal/97, dated 5-8-1997 in Appeal No. C/3564/87-B

Advocated By : Shri D.K. Dhar, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri T. Prem Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows :-

1.1 The appellants herein imported one Part No. 43-7765-0 for High Voltage Assembly. It was cleared on payment of duty under protest at Tariff Heading 8473.30 of the Customs Tariff as parts and accessories of the machines falling under Heading No. 84.71. The machines under that Heading 84.71 are described as follows :-

“Automatic data processing machines and units thereof; mechanical or optical readers, machines for prescribing data on to data media in coded form and machines for processing such data not elsewhere specified.”

1.2 Later on, a refund claim was filed by the appellants contending that the aforesaid goods are classifiable under Tariff sub-heading 8442.30. This Heading covers various printing/type-setting machines and the sub-heading in question covers other machinery, apparatus and equipment.

1.3 The lower authorities have rejected the refund claim of the appellants. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Learned Advocate, Shri D.K. Dhar has submitted that the part in question is having a definite Part number and is a part of the Monitor Assembly of the phototype-setting machine. There is a certificate from the local agent of the suppliers namely M/s. Kohli Graphic System, New Delhi to the effect that this Part is a part of Computerised Edit 6400 CRT Digital Phototypesetter and can be used only for this machine. Relying on this certificate, learned Advocate submits that the classification should be upheld under the sub-heading 8442.32.

3. Opposing the contentions, learned SDR, Shri T. Prem Kumar for the Revenue submits that it is apparent from the documents supplied by the appellants themselves that it is a part of the Monitor Assembly. A Monitor Assembly, he submits, being a part of the computerised machine or automatic data processing machine, would fall under sub-heading 8473.30 and part of Monitor Assembly would also fall thereunder. He, therefore, submits that on merits also, the appellants do not have any case. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be dismissed.

4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. We are inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned SDR. He has rightly pointed out that this Part has to be used in the monitor assembly of the phototype-setting machine. It is admittedly a part of a Monitor Assembly, as per the appellants’ own documents. Therefore, it rightly falls under Tariff sub-heading 8473.30 because it has to be assessed as a part of Automatic Data Processing Machine. Hence this appeal is rejected.

_______

Equivalent 1998 (104) ELT 736 (Tribunal)

Equivalent 1997 (022) RLT 0782 (CEGAT)