Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2016-17/3204

Classification dispute of MSO CBM (EMBALLE PAR 40) FINGER PRINT READER - SCANNER – whether it will fall under chapter heading 8471 or 8543.

Case-STJ ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (I&G), NEW DELHI
 
Citation-2016 (337) E.L.T. 140 (Tri. - Del.)
 
Issue-Classification dispute of MSO CBM (EMBALLE PAR 40) FINGER PRINT READER - SCANNER – whether it will fall under chapter heading 8471 or 8543.

Brief Facts-Appeal is filed against order-in-appeal dated 16-11-2009 in terms of which the impugned goods namely MSO CBM (EMBALLE PAR 40) FINGER PRINT READER - SCANNER were held to be classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 8543, as against the classification claimed by the appellant under CTH 8471 on the ground that the goods were optical readers and hence clearly covered under CTH 8471.
 
Appelants Contention-The appellant has contended that:
(i)         As per the manufacturer’s pamphlet the goods are described as High-performance optical sensor which works on the proprietary optical technology. It reads the finger prints and transmit it through the signals to the computer or the motherboard for matching with fingerprints already stored in the computer/motherboard and the adjudicating authority admits that the impugned goods are optical reader that read finger print pattern.
(ii)        The impugned goods are without housing and cable and are fitted in a housing and with cable which connects the module to the computer in a case of stationery system. In the case of hand held system, the housing has motherboard and the impugned item is connected to the motherboard through a cable. When a finger is put on the screen of the impugned item the finger print is transmitted through signals to the computer or the motherboard.
(iii)       Thus, the imported item acts as an input unit to a system and functions on optical technology. These goods are classified under Heading 8471 at other Custom Houses in India as is evident from the printout submitted. They cited Chapter Note 5(C) to Chapter 84 in support of its contention.
 
Respondents Contention-Ld. DR on the other hand stated that the impugned goods are parts of electrical machines and apparatus having individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 85 and referred to Chapter Note 5(E) to Chapter 84.
 
Reasoning Of Judgement-The tribunal have considered the contentions of both sides and perused the records. As the issue involved is classification of the impugned goods, whether under CTH 8471 or CTH 8543, both these headings are reproduced below for convenience.
Chapter heading 8471 reads as under :
“Automatic data processing machines and units thereof; magnetic or optical readers, machines for transcribing data on to data media in coded form and machines for processing such data, not elsewhere specified or included”.
Chapter heading 8543 reads as under :
“Electrical machines and apparatus having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter”.
From the pamphlets relating to the impugned goods, it is evident that the impugned goods are fingerprint reader which work on optical technology and involve flat optical sensor for compact design. Its technical specifications indicate that it comprises thin optical sensor. CTH 8471 specifically covers magnetic or optical readers. Chapter Note 5(C), (D) and (E) to Chapter 84 read as under:
“(C) Subject to paragraphs (D) and (E) a unit is to be regarded as being part of an automatic data processing system if it meets all of the following conditions:
(i)         it is of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system;
(ii)        it is connectable to the central processing unit either directly or through one or more other units; and
(iii)       it is able to accept or deliver data in a form (codes or signals) which can be used by the system.

Separately presented units of an automatic data processing machine are to be classified in heading 8471.
However, keyboards, X-Y co-ordinate input devices and disk storage units which satisfy the conditions of (ii) and (iii) above, are in all cases to be classified as units of heading 8471.
(D) Heading 8471 does not cover the following when presented separately, even if they meet all of the conditions set forth in the paragraph (C)
(i)         printers, copying machines, facsimile machines, whether or not combined;
(ii)        apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data, including apparatus for communication in a wired or wireless network (such as a local or wide area network);
(iii)       loudspeakers and microphones;
(iv)       television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders;
(v)        monitors and projectors, not incorporating television reception apparatus.
(E) Machines incorporating or working in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine and performing a specific function other than data processing are to be classified in the headings appropriate to their respective functions or, failing that, in residual headings”.
It is clear that the impugned item is of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system, it is connectable to the central processing unit and is able to accept or deliver data in a form (codes or signals) which can be used by the system. The exclusions contained in Chapter Note 5(D) do not cover the impugned item and it is not the case of Revenue either that it does. Revenue referred to Chapter Note 5(E) quoted above. Tribunal find that Chapter Note 5(E) refers to machines incorporating or working in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine and performing a specific function other than data processing. In the present case the machine essentially performs data processing function inasmuch as it processes the data relating to fingerprint with the finger print data in the motherboard/Centre processing unit (CPU). Thus, it does not have any specific function other than data processing. The impugned goods are therefore not eased out of CTH 8471 by the provisions of Chapter Notes 5(D) & 5(E) CTH 85.43 covers electrical machines and apparatus having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 85. Thus, this heading is a sort of residuary heading for the goods otherwise covered under Chapter 85. As the impugned goods are found to be covered under CTH 8471 as per above analysis, they are obviously out of chapter 85 and hence out of CTH 85.43 too.
In the light of aforesaid analysis, they are of the view that the impugned goods are classifiable under CTH 8471; that they are so classified in some Customs Houses like Bombay and Chennai as per the data given by the appellant only reaffirms that those customs houses are correctly classifying the same. Accordingly, tribunal set-aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
 
Decision-Appeal allowed
 
Comment-It is clear that the MSO CBM (EMBALLE PAR 40) FINGER PRINT READER - SCANNER is of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system, it is connectable to the CPU and is able to accept or deliver data in a form (codes or signals) which can be used by the system. The exclusions contained in Chapter Note 5(D) do not cover such item whereas the Chapter Note 5(E) refers to machines incorporating or working in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine and performing a specific function other than data processing.
But, since in the present case the machine essentially performs data processing function Thus, it does not have any specific function other than data processing. Therefore MSO CBM (EMBALLE PAR 40) FINGER PRINT READER - SCANNER not eased out of CTH 8471 and hence classified under the chapter heading 8471 and not under Heading 8543.
 
Prepared By-Neelam Jain

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com