Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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