2006(09)LCX0077

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI [COURT NO. I]

Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President and Shri K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)

Bradma of India Ltd.

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Final Order No. A/911/2006-WZB/(C.S.T.B.), dated 11-9-2006 in Appeal No. C/1085/1999

Cases Quoted -

Anjaleem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2006(01)LCX0004 Eq 2006 (194) ELT 0129 (S.C.) - Relied on[Para 3]

Advocated By -

Shri A. V. Naik, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Pramod Kumar, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. -

The issue in dispute in the present appeal is the correct classification of integrated circuits (software for imported postage franking machines) imported by the appellants herein and seeking clearance under Customs Tariff Heading 8542.50. According to the department, the goods are parts of franking machines and hence classifiable under CTH 8470.90 which covers franking machines and parts thereof.


2. We have heard both sides.


3. We find that in a recent decision reported in 2006(01)LCX0004 Eq 2006 (194) ELT 0129 (S.C.) in the case of Anjaleem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad, the Apex Court has held that even a programmed IC is classifiable under Heading 85.42 and that the essential character of an IC does not change with the programme being embedded therein. Further, on application of Note 2(a) to Section XVI of the Tariff under which Chapters 84 and 85 fall, the ICs in question will remain classifiable under Heading 85.42 as, although they may be parts of franking machines, they are specifically enumerated/included in Heading 85.42. Further, according to Note 5 to Chapter 85, the classification of ICs under CTH 85.42 will take precedence over any other heading in the Schedule which may cover ICs by reference to their function etc. and, therefore, even if the ICs can be treated as parts of franking machines, by virtue of the above Note 5, their classification under Chapter Heading 85.42 will take precedence over classification under CTH 8470.90.


4. In the light of the above discussion, we accept the importers' claim for classification of the goods in dispute under CTH 85.42, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Equivalent 2006 (204) ELT 0082 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Equivalent 2006 (113) ECC 0426

Equivalent 2006 (139) ECR 0426 (Tri.- Mumbai)

Equivalent 2007 (078) RLT 0885 (CESTAT-Mumbai)