Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
C.C.E. Chennai vs M/S Hi-Tech Computers on 16 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(77)ECC493, 2001(133)ELT586(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER
Shri SL Peeran
1. This Revenue appeal challenges the classification of the item 'mouse pads' under sub heading 8473.30 on the basis of the explanatory note to HSN appearing under page 1412 which specifically states that accessories covered by this heading are interchangeable parts or devices designed to adapt the machine for a particular operation or to perform a particular service related to the main function of a machine or to increase its range of operation. He has noted that mouse pads increases the range of operation of a computer and therefore, in terms of the Explanatory notes to HSN, upheld the importer's contention that the item is required to be classified under heading 8473.30 as opposed to the department's classification as pads to polyurethanes under sub-heading 3921.13 The commissioner contends that the item is to be considered only as parts of plastics for classification under chapter 39 and not under chapter 84 as has been done by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The learned SDR contends that the item has features of parts of plastic (polyurethanes) and therefore, the classification adopted under heading 39 is required to be upheld by setting aside the impugned order.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the classification adopted in terms of the Explanatory note to HSN is binding. He further submits that the explanatory note to HSN has got over riding effect. He seeks for confirmation of the impugned order and dismissal of the Revenue appeal.
4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the impugned order. We notice that the Commissioner (Appeal) was persuaded by the Explanatory notes to HSN appearing at page No. 1412 which clearly state that accessories covered by this heading are interchangeable parts or devices designed to adapt the machine for a particular operation or to perform a particular service related to the main function of machine or to increase its range of operation. The mouse pads are specifically designed for the purpose and the computer can only function with the mouse pads designed for it. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly adopted the classification under heading 8473.30 which is more specific. Further we notice that even in terms of Rule 3(a) of the Interpretative Rules to the Customs Tariff Act, the heading which is more specific shall be adopted in preference to the general description. In the present case, the item has been specifically manufactured as mouse pads. We notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the applicability of explanatory note to HSN as having persuasive value in terms of the larger bench judgement in the case of Tata Liebert Ltd & Ors vs. CCE, reported in 1999 (35) RLT 933 and other judgements. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and hence we confirm the impugned order and dismiss the Revenue appeal. Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court).