CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Customs Appeal No. 88383 of 2014 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 1954 (Gr.V)/2014(JNCH)/IMP - 1877 dated 25.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II, JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Taluka-Uran, Dist. Raigad, Maharashtra)

AGS Transact Technologies Limited .… Appellants

601-602, B-Wing, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai - 400 013.

Versus Commissioner of Customs (Imports) …. Respondent Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House (JNCH), Nhava Sheva Taluka Uran, District Raigad, Maharashtra – 400 707.

Appearance:

Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Consultant for the Appellants Shri Ram Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85872/2025 Date of Hearing: 18.02.2025 Date of Decision: 06.06.2025 PER: M.M. PARTHIBAN This appeal has been filed by M/s AGS Transact Technologies Limited, Mumbai (herein after, referred to as ‘the appellants’), assailing Order-in-Appeal No. 1954 (Gr.V)/2014(JNCH)/IMP - 1877 dated 25.04.2014 (herein after, referred to as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II, JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Taluka-Uran, Dist. Raigad, Maharashtra.

2.1 The brief facts of the case are that the appellants-importer is engaged in the import and the assembly of ‘Wincor Beetal’ Modular Point Of Sale (POS) systems. The POS system manufactured by the appellants are used in shopping malls and other retail outlets for preparation of bill/sale invoice, accounting of stocks, accounting of the amount received as sale proceeds etc., and it is a desktop computer based POS system.

For assembly/manufacture of POS system, the appellants importer had imported a consignment of BA 63 display, cash drawer and cables by classifying it under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8471 6090, under Bill of Entry (B/E) No. 3439176 dated 03.10.2013 and self-assessed the same by claiming duty exemption/ ‘NIL’ Basic Customs Duty (BCD) vide Notification No.24/2005-Customs dated 01.03.2005, in terms of Section

17(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2.2 The Appraising Officer of the Customs Assessment Group had objected to the classification of the imported goods and had raised query seeking reply from the appellants as to why the imported goods should not be classified under CTI 8531 8000 with applicable Basic Customs Duty (BCD) of 10% ad valorem, as such classification under HS Code is also reflected in the supplier’s packing list. After detailed analysis of the reply submitted to the objections raised and being not satisfied with such reply, the department had adjudicated the case, after giving personal hearing, seeking for revising the classification of imported goods and by demanding differential duty along with interest and for imposition of penalty on the appellants vide Order-in-Original dated 29.10.2013.

2.3 In adjudication of the case, the original authority had come to the conclusion that the imported goods are used for display of the classic customer and operator display for text-based applications such as item/price information and operator instruction. Since the imported item is only a display unit, the original authority decided that it is rightly classified under CTI 8531 8000 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under the declared CTI 8471 6090. Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellants have filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who on the basis of product details and by application of Rule 3 of the Interpretative Rules to the customs tariff had confirmed the original order and rejected the appeal filed by the appellants by issue of Order-in-Appeal dated 25.04.2014. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 25.04.2014, the appellants have filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

3.1. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the g