Back
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial), Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical)
M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs (Import) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's initial classification claim and rejection details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's observations based on established precedent and classification standards. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's determination and reasoning on product classification. (Para 5) |
(Appeals – II), Chennai. (‘impugned order’)
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed Bill of Entry dated 16.2.2013 for clearing the goods declared as ‘Data Projector Model X 122H DLP XGA Projector 270 3D with carrying case’. The appellants claimed classification under Customs Tariff Heading (herein after referred to as CTH) 85286100 as projectors of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system of heading 8471 and exemption from basic customs duty in terms of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus dated 1.3.2005 (Sl. No. 17) and concessional rate of additional duty of customs at 12 % in terms of Notification No. 2/2008- CE (Sl. No. 63). After due process of law, the lower authority rejected the classification as claimed by the appellant and classified the goods under CTH 852869 and denied the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005. Aggrieved against the said order, appellants preferred appeal befo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
