Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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