2004(01)LCX0288

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI

S/Shri S.S. Sekhon, Member (T) and Krishna Kumar, Member (J)

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ACC, SAHAR

Versus

PARO SYNTEX LTD.

Order No. 354/2004-WZB/C-II, dated 12-1-2004 in Appeal No. C/38/98-Mum.

CASE CITED

Forbes Gokak Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2003(02)LCX0050 Eq 2003 (153) ELT 0024 (S.C.) — Followed............................ [Para 2]

Advocated By :        Shri Hitesh Shah, DR, for the Appellant.

Shri A.V. Naik, Advocate, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. - After hearing both sides and considering the issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is classification of an entity under import termed as ‘Computer Auto Glare Glass’. Revenue wants classification under 70.20, as article of glass while the CC (Appeals) has classified it under 8473.30.

2. It is found :-

(a)     the entity is a screen made of glass with nice edge of plastic and used as a shield over the Video Display Monitor of a Computer to cut off glare.

(b)     the use is only facilitating an application not crucial or essential to working of a computer. It cannot be a part of computer thereof. It is mere as an accessory and can be used on any TV screen. Therefore classifications as part/component of a computer under 8473 is not accepted.

(c)      There is force in the argument that S.C. in the case of Forbes Gokak Ltd. v. Collector - 2003(02)LCX0050 Eq 2003 (153) ELT 0024 (S.C.) after considering in extenso the chapter Note (C) of Chapter 84 in para 20 ordered that the articles appliances of ceramic glass were excluded from Chapter 84. Following the decision, the classification under Chapter 84.73 is ruled out. The Article being essentially of glass would get classified under 70.20 of Tariff.

(d)     Consequently Revenue appeal is allowed. Classification of the entity being upheld under 70.20.

(e)     Appeal allowed in above terms.

_______

Equivalent 2004 (173) ELT 0411 (Tri. - Mumbai)