Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Heard both sides and perused the records.

8. As regards manufacture of the goods, the appellant had imported tablets and accessories and were supplied to M/s. Vinyas, Mysore / Vinyas Innovative Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Once they have paid service tax for the activity carried out by them by considering it as service, no finding can be made that the very same activity amounts to manufacture at appellant end and even if is held that it amounts to manufacturer, job workers are liable to pay excise duty as applicable. Further as regarding classification also, we find that the Adjudication Authority confirmed the demand by classifying the good as falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading (CETH) 85437099 and the Heading 85437099 reads as "ELECTRIC MACHINES AND APPARATUS HAVING NDIVIDUAL FUNCTIONS, NOT SPECIFIED OR INCLUDED ELSEWHERE IN THIS CHAPTER". However, while importing goods are described as Central Excise Appeal No. E/20156/2022 tablet devices under HSN Code 84713090 and even as per the impugned order that the study of the above features shows that the devices are designed for a specific functionality relating to data collection / access control device. The goods are clearly shown to have been designed for data capturing, computing, memory, time tracking, security and payroll management. As regards classification, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CC Vs. Bhor Industries., 1988(35) ELT 346(SC) held that handheld computer sold by the Appellant is therefore not understood in the market as "electrical machines and apparatus". The demand of excise duty under Central Excise Tariff Heading (CETH) 85437099 is therefore impermissible on all canons of statutory interpretation. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of SPA Computers Ltd Vs. CCE., reported in 1999(110) ELT689(T) it is held that when the controller is used as an adjunct to computer it has to be classified under chapter heading 8471 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Further as per the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Gestener (India) Ltd Vs. Commissioner., 2006(197) ELT 498 (T), multi-function digital printers are also classifiable under heading 8471.60 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Similarly, as per the decision of the Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Essae Teyaoka Ltd Vs. Commissioner., 2001(130) ELT 831(T), scanner which is portable in nature being hand held could be attached to the terminal and also has a small keyboard, data can be collected either by use of keyboard or by scanning bar codes as an input unit which is to be attached to data processing system namely the personal computer and therefore in view of section note, explanatory notes and the specific description, it is classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8471.60. Further as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Xerox India Ltd Vs. Commissioner., reported in 2010 (260) ELT 161(SC), printers as part of the computer input unit are classifiable under Customs Tariff heading (CTH) 8471.60.