Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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