Continental Automative Components (India) Pvt Ltd Vs C.C-The Principal Commissioner Customs Bangalore (CESTAT Bangalore)
we find that the appellant has imported 576 pieces of LCD modules and accordingly filed bill of entry giving the details of the same and the goods were physically examined by the officers of SIIB and the stand of the appellant from the very beginning was that as per the technical write up, which was submitted to the Department, clearly shows that these LCD are used in the instrument cluster manufacture by the appellant and which instrument cluster in turn disclosed the main Kilometer reading, Day Trip reading and Clock and all these details are matched with the details in bill of entry. We also find that the original authority, in spite of technical details given by the appellant, did not seek technical opinion before passing the Order-in-Original and has also failed to explain in its Order as to why the subject goods are different from plain LCDs. We also find that the Order-in-Original was passed without issuing the SCN which is also in violation of principles of natural justice, in view of the decision in the case of Zinc Products Vs UOI, 1992 (57) ELT 222 (mad). We also find that LCDs are specifically provided in Tariff Item No. 9013 and as per Note 2(a) attached to Chapter 90, parts and accessories which are goods included in any of the Heading of the said Chapter 90 are to be classified in their respective Headings.
We also find that this decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court has been followed by the Tribunal in number of decisions cited supra by the appellant wherein similar products have been held to be classifiable under Tariff Item 9013. By following the ratio of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Secure Meters (cited supra) relied upon by the appellant and also considered by the Tribunal in various decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order classifying the said goods under 90299000 is not legally sustainable and we set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT BANGALORE ORDER
The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.07.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order of the original authority.
2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the business of development/manufacturing of components and systems for vehicles and providing the most modern automotive technologies to all the major brand in India. The appellant, for the purpose of its business of manufacture of such products, imported 576 pieces of LCD-Module from Sanghai, China in six cartons, totally valued at Rs.5,93,918/- and filed a Bill of Entry No.225811 dated 22.09.2009 at Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore, classifying the said item under CTH 90139010 having a Nil rate of BCD. The said bill of entry was facilitated through the RMS and the officers of SIIB, Bangalore took up this bill of entry for further verification and after obtaining documents from the appellants, consignment was opened and examined in detail by the SIIB officers. Thereafter, a personal hearing was granted to the appellants wherein the appellants submitted technical write up for LCD stating that they are used in the instrument clusters manufactured by the appellant, which instrument clusters in turn, displays the main Kilometer reading, day trip reading and clock. Thereafter, the appellant received Order-in-Original dated 12.10.2009 holding that LCD modules imported by the appellant shall be classified under CTH 90299000 as parts of speedometer and charged to duty at 10% as applicable to this CTH and also vacating the appellant’s claim for duty paid under protest. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner taking various grounds and the Commissioner vide the impugned order rejected the appeal mainly on the ground that the impugned goods are specially and solely meant for use in speedometer and they are not simple LCD. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before us.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant mainly relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi in the matter of Secure Meters Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (2004-VIL-18-CESTAT-DEL-CU). The said decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Aex Court vide its order dated 05.05.2015 in the matter of Secure Meters Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2015 (319) ELT 565 (SC) has reversed the order of the Tribunal and allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant therein and held that LCDs imported by the said Appellant were classifiable under chapter heading 9013.80 as liquid crystal devices. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra after the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Secure Meters Ltd. case. He also submitted that LCD is used to display various information according to its application. The LCD, driven by microcontroller, is used in the instrument clusters manufactured by the appellants, which in turn displays the Main Kilometer reading, Day Trip Reading & Clock. It is his further submission that as per Rule 1 of General Rules of Interpretation, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the heading of any relevant section or Chapter Note. It is evident that LCDs are specifically provided in Tariff Item 9013. Moreover, as per Note 2(a) attached to Chapter 90, parts and accessories, which are goods included in any of the headings of said Chapter 90 are to be classified in their respective headings and accordingly, LCDs imported by the Appellant therein classified under Chapter Heading 9013.90 not under CTH 9029.90 as parts and accessories of speedometer. He further submitted that after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secure Meters Ltd. V. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (cited supra), similar products have been held to be classifiable under Tariff Item 9013. He cited the following decisions:
