Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S. Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd. on 28 July, 2015
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rohinton Fali Nariman
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5484 OF 2003
Commnr. Of Customs Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/s.Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
The issue involved in the present appeal pertains to the correct classification that is to be given to the goods of the respondent assessee herein which are known as `business satellite receivers'. The two relevant and competent entries in this behalf are 85.25 and 85.28. Whereas the case of the assessee is that the goods in question are to be classified in Chapter Heading entry 8525.20, the Revenue contends that the appropriate entry would be 8528.10. Both these entries are reproduced below:-
85.25 85.28 Transmission apparatus for Reception apparatus for radio-telephony, television, whether or not Signature Not Verified radio-telegraphy, Digitally signed by Suman Wadhwa incorporating Date: 2015.08.03 16:48:39 IST Reason:
radio-broadcasting or radio-broadcast receivers or television whether or not sound or video recording or incorporating reception reproducing apparatus, video 2 apparatus or sound recording monitors and video or reproducing apparatus, projectors reception television cameras, still apparatus for television, image video cameras and whether or not incorporating other video camera radio-broadcast receivers recorders. nor sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus.
8525.10 Transmissio 25% 8528.12 colour 35%
n apparatus
8525.20 Transmiss 25% 8528.13 Black and 35%
ion White or other
apparatus monochrome
Incorporat video
ing Monitors
reception
Apparatus
8525.30 Television 35% 8528.21 Colour 35%
Cameras
8525.40 Still image 35% 8528.22 Black and white or 35%
video camers other monochrome
and other
video camera
recorders
8528.30 Video projector 35%
It is not in dispute that the `business satellite receivers' of the respondent has the transmitting as well as reception functions. It is for this reason that the assessee's contention is the goods fall within the description `ransmission apparatus incorporating reception apparatus'. Mr. Adhyaru, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue on the other hand contends that it is the essential character or per-dominant character of the apparatus which needs to be looked into and in the present 3 case the per-dominant character of the satellite receiver is to receive the signals and then transmit. He has taken us through the product manual of the respondent from which he has tried to demonstrate that primary function of the goods in question is to receive the signals.
We are not in agreement with the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue. A reading of Entry 85.28, under which the Revenue wants the product to be included, would show that it pertains to only those apparatus which have the function of receiving the signals only and that they are reception apparatus. The moment particular apparatus has transmission function as well that would be excluded from Chapter Heading 85.28. On the other hand Chapter Heading 85.25 deals with transmission apparatus. Here under entry 8525.20 what is clarified that even if the apparatus which are transmitting signals have the additional functions of reception of signals as well, such goods will still be classified 8525.20. We are therefore of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly classified the goods of the respondent under 8525.20.
The Commissioner, who had taken the contrary view, went by Rule 2(b), that is the classification of combination substance, and on that basis he held that since the goods were classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as per the said Rule. This itself is 4 incorrect having regard to the fact that entry 85.28 deals only with reception apparatus with no function as transmission apparatus.
This appeal is accordingly dismissed. The excess duty paid by the respondent, if any, shall be refunded in accordance with law.
….....................J. (A.K.SIKRI) …......................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) New Delhi;
Date: 28.7.2015.
5
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.12 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 5484/2003
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S. MULTI SCREEN MEDIA PVT. LTD. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for stay and office report) Date : 28/07/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Yashank Adhyaru,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Nisha Bagchi,Adv.
Mr. Abhinab Mukherjee,Adv. Ms. Pooja Sharma,Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Yeshwant Chitale,Sr.Adv.
Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale,Adv. Mr. Chetan Sharma,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(SUMAN WADHWA) (SUMAN JAIN)
AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER
Signed order is placed on the file.