2005(08)LCX0087

(In the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai)

Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President, Shri S.S. Sekhon, Member (Technical)

Leader Electricals Pvt. Ltd.

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Final Order No. A/10/WZB/2005-CI(CB) dt. 10.8.2005 certified on 24.8.2005 in Appeal No. C/565/2001-Mum

Advocated By -

Shri R. Parthasarathy, Adv. for Appellants
Shri Ajay Saxena, DR for Respondent

Per Jyoti Balasundaram :

The appellants herein imported a consignment declared as "Electronic Ballast with housing for Compact Fluorescent Lamps" and claimed classification of the goods under Heading 8504.10 under OGL. On the basis of the description given in the Bill of Entry and the Invoice, the goods were assessed on second check basis and the Bill of Entry was completed. The appellants requested for allowing first check examination of the goods, which request was rejected, as Bill of Entry was already completed. The appellants filed a Writ Petition against the levy of duty and interest thereon before the High Court of Bombay; the High Court released the goods on payment of duty but without payment of interest. A representative sample was called for by the Revenue to verify the description before releasing the goods. Initial examination shows that the goods were lamp fittings without lamp holders fitted with electronic ballasts for holding Compact Fluorescent lamp classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 9405.40. The import of such item was restricted and permissible only against production of a Special Import Licence. Show Cause Notice dated 13.1.1999 was issued proposing confiscation of the goods and proposing imposition of penalty upon the importers, which notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner, who confiscated the good holding that the classification of the goods was to be under Customs Tariff Heading 9405.40 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10.00 lakhs on the importers. In appeal, the lower appellate authority upheld the findings of the adjudicating authority but reduced the penalty to Rs. 5.00 lakhs. Hence this appeal before this Tribunal.

2. We have heard both sides. The question to be determined is whether the goods are Electronic Ballast classifiable under Heading claimed by the importers, namely Customs Tariff Heading 85.04 or are lamp fittings classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 94.05. We find that the goods were examined and found to be in the nature of lamp holder for fixing of the lamp by twisting to lamp holder of ordinary bulbs along with an adapter, at the other end for holding Compact Fluorescent Lamp and is stated to be containing a ballast inside. It is not denied that there is ballast fitted inside the article imported. However, the article imported, as examined, has been found to be a composite article comprising lamp holder, ballast and adapter. Reliance placed by the Ld. counsel for the appellants on the report of the Regional Testing Centre of the Ministry of Industry does not advance their case for the reason that the construction of the item presented for testing was found to be built in electronic ballast housed in a suitable enclosure with wires connected and is protected by fixing a moulded part to hold suitable Compact Fluoresce Lamp. This clearly shows that the goods are not electronic lamps per se but something more, namely lamp fitting containing electronic ballast. Therefore, the classification adopted by the authority below which is in conformity with the HSN Explanatory Notes is required to be upheld. We therefore uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Pronounced in Court

Equivalent 2005 (071) RLT 0370 (CESTAT-Mum.)

Equivalent 2006 (193) ELT 0364 (Tri.- Del.)