Whether exemption under Notification no.24/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 to ?business projectors? can be denied on the ground that they can be used other than as attachments of computers?

PJ/Case Law/2020-2021/3645

M/S Epson India Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Bangalore [2020-VIL-354-CESTAT-BLR-CU]
Brief Facts: - The taxpayer had imported ‘business projectors’ and classified them under CTH 8528 6100. Exemption benefit was availed under Notification no. 24/ 2005 dated March 1, 2005 which provided exemption to all goods falling under heading no. 8528 41, 8528 51 or 8528 61 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 w.e.f. January 1, 2007. Accordingly, cathode ray tubes, monitors, other monitors and projector of a kind solely or principally used in automatic data processing system of heading 8471 are eligible for exemption.
Issue: - Whether exemption under Notification no.24/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 to ‘business projectors’ can be denied on the ground that they can be used other than as attachments of computers?
Reasoning of the judgement: -The Department has primarily contended that the imported goods were not in conformity with the qualification of being 'solely or principally used' in 'automatic data processing system'. The goods have to be classified in accordance with trade parlance and the projector imported by the company could also be used without a computer for projecting images on a USB or a digital camera.
The Hon’ble Tribunal also observed that in circumstances of declared classification, denial by customs authorities shifts the burden on to them for justifying the alternative classification and, in the absence of valid reasons, the declared classification is to be restored. Trade parlance is to be resorted to only when the commonly used phraseology describes the goods closely enough to the description of the sub-heading in the tariff. Principle of trade parlance is to be used to disambiguate expressions that may be open to a technical definition and is founded on the premise that the tariff is intended for the trade and not for academics with no scope for definitions to be read into or borrowed from elsewhere.
Held: -Hon’ble Tribunal held that asset class of the products, with one intended solely, or principally, for use with automated data processing systems, is not intended to exclude the various other usages but to provide a context in which the intended product can be construed. Thus, to the extent the business projectors, are capable of use with computers (automated data processing system), they are classifiable under CTH 8528 6100 and are eligible for the availing exemption.
Prepared By : CA. Kartik Singhvi

Comments

PJ/Case Law/2020-2021/3645

Post a Comment

Query