Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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