Classification of goods must focus on predominant use rather than mere technical specifications, granting exemptions accordingly.

(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 before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the order impugned herein rejected the appeal and upheld the order passed by the lower authority. Hence the appellant is before this Tribunal.

2.1 No cross-objection has been filed by the respondent-department. 3. Learned counsel Shri Rohan Muralidharan appeared for the appellant and Shri N. Satyanarayanan, learned AR appeared for the respondent.

3.1 The learned counsel Shri Rohan Muralidharan submitted that Data Projectors- Model X1220h DLP XGA Projector 270 3D imported by them seeking classification under CTH 8528 6100 at Nil rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) as per Notification No.24/2005-CUs. dated 01.03.2005. The product had the following technical/ product specifications:

The Appellant cleared the consignment on payment of duty under protest as the department wanted to classify the goods under CTH 8528 6900. The Learned Assistant Commissioner, thereafter, passed Order-in-Original No. 21062/2013 dated 13.06.2013 (hereinafter referred to as OIO) wherein the submissions of the Appellant were rejected and the assessment of subject goods finalised under CTH 8528 6900. On Appeal the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order upholding the findings in the OIO. The learned Counsel submitted that the issue in dispute in the present case regarding classification of data projectors has already been decided by several forums in favour of the Appellant and provided a tabular chart of the same in their written submissions, given during the oral hearing, as given here under: