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/2018-2019/3466

Whether Kindle device is covered under Tariff Item 8543 70 99 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or not?

Case-AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Citation: 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 392 (A.A.R. - GST)

Issue:Whether Kindle device is covered under Tariff Item 8543 70 99 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or not?

Brief facts: -In the Instant case Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. has imported a Kindle Device, herein referred to as the applicant. The Kindle Device as per the understanding of the applicant is just an electrical device having unique and individual functions.

Appellant’s contention: .The applicant claims that this Kindle Device is classifiable under the Tariff Item in 8543 70 99. On this basis, the applicant has claimed a total exemption from payment of customs duty under the Notification No. 25/2005-Cus., dated 1-3-2005.

Respondent’s Contention­-The Customs Department relies on the ground that the Kindle Device which is imported does not have the translation or the dictionary functions as it is the main feature. The contention of the Revenue is that the Notification would be applicable only to such Kindle devices which have the translation or as the case may be dictionary functions as its main function.

Judgment: It is clear that all such electrical machines which have the translation or its dictionary functions will be entitled to be benefitted by the Notification as stated above. When the entries are to be read, the plain meaning have to be given to those entries. We do not find anything anywhere in the Notification which admits of any other interpretation much less offered by the Revenue to the effect that the function of translation or dictionary as the case may be, should be a main feature of the electrical machine like Kindle device. Therefore, the Authority rejected the contention of the Department on this point.
Further at the final hearing stage, Shri Dixit (The Additional Commissioner) raised the question that this device may not be covered under the entry 8543 70 99. On behalf of Commissionerates i.e. Chennai Air Cargo as well as Mumbai Air Cargo in their reply both have in an clear terms agreed that the device i.e. Kindle is actually covered under entry 8543 70 99. The Commissioner then points out to a contrary stand regarding the Tariff entry. Chennai (seaport-import) Commissionerate, however, asserts that the device which is proposed to be is covered under entry 8528 59 00 and the other is Chapter 8521 General. It is also suggested that this device can be covered under Tariff entry 9504 90.
Delhi Commissionerate in its communication dated 2-7-2012 set up a defence to entry 8471 and in fact that is not a case of the applicant. The applicant throughout claims the benefit of entry 8543 70 99.
In fact, this issue of Tariff entry had been closed at the admission stage itself on account of the comments sent by the Commissionerates of Chennai Air Cargo and Mumbai Air Cargo and the matter was proceeded only on the ground as to whether the import could be covered by the Notification as stated above. However, at the final stage the Additional Commissioner has raised this question of a different Tariff entry which covers the product.
Though, reluctantly, we would proceed to decide even this contention at this stage raised by the Revenue for the first time. First entry claimed to be applicable is 8528 59 00. It comes under the main entry 8528 which pertains to “monitors and projectors, not incorporating, television reception, apparatus, reception apparatus for television, whether or not incorporating radio products, receivers or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus.” The concerned entry relied on by the Customs i.e. 8528 59 00. The Authority contended that they have seen Tariff entry ourselves and are of the clear opinion that this entry will not cover in any manner the Kindle Device because basically it is not a monitor or a projector. The main entry 8528 is in respect of the monitors, projectors and the television sets that is clearly not the case here. The specific entry relied upon by the Customs is 8521 which pertains to video recording or reproducing apparatus, whether or not incorporating video tuner. This is clearly not applicable for the simple reason that Kindle device is not meant for video recording or reproducing anything. The other related entry under this heading pertains to video recorders beta cam or beta cam SP or digital beta cam S-VHS or digital -S etc. That is clearly not the proper description of Kindle device.
The third entry relied upon by the Customs Department is under the heading 9504 which pertains to video game consoles and machines, articles for funfair table or parlor games, including printables, billiards, special tables for casino games and automatic bowling alley equipment. From the very nature of the description, the Kindle Device will not be a part of toys, games and sports equipments; parts and accessories thereof which is to be covered under the heading 9504. Custom says that it will come under 950490 which is ‘other’. Kindle cannot be covered under this entry, it has to be in the nature of the games. The ‘other’ entry pertains to the video game consoles and machines or the other games apparatus by coins, banknotes, bankcards to Kindle. Entry 9504 is meant for the various machines for games. In short 9504 is meant for various kinds of games. Kindle apparatus is certainly not a game. It has the function of allowing the user to read various books and while reading, if the user comes across any difficult word incomprehensible to the user, he can access the dictionary meaning of the word. It is certainly not a game. It is an educational device. It cannot be covered under the category meant for the games, hence, Department’s contention is unacceptable. Therefore, in the opinion of Authority, the Kindle Device will be covered under entry 8543 70 99 being an electrical machine with translation or dictionary functions. Therefore, this late objection raised by the Revenue is rejected. We have seen the some import details. All these imports have been under the entry 8543 70 99 and accepted by Customs. Of course, these imports were not made by the applicant but that is irrelevant once the Customs Departments accepts the same to be covered by 8543 70 99.
 
Decision:. The appeal is decided in favour of the applicant.
 
Comment: The gist of the case is, kindle device is not a game. It is an educational device which has the function of allowing the user to read various books and while reading, if the user comes across any difficult word incomprehensible to the user, he can access the dictionary meaning of the word - It cannot be covered under the category meant for the games - Kindle device will be covered under Tariff Item 8543 70 99 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Prepared by:  Himanshu Bhimani
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

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