- (1.) The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of electricity meters. In September 2000, the appellant imported a consignment consisting of LCD Modules (Printed Circuit Boards) and Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) from Hong Kong. The classification of the LCD Module is not in dispute. The dispute in the instant case relates to classification of LCDs. The appellant sought clearance of LCDs under Chapter Heading 9013.80 and claimed assessment at Nil rate (basic duty), 16% additional duty and 4% SAD. As per the appellant, since the LCDs were classifiable under Chapter Heading 9013.80, in view of Notification No. 16/2000, and particularly Entry/S.No. 304 of the table of the said Notification, the goods classified under Heading 9013.80 attracted Nil rate of basic custom duty. That was the reason for claiming assessment at Nil rate insofar as basic duty is concerned. However, the case of the respondent/custom authorities is that on verification it was found that the goods were not simple liquid crystal. On the contrary, these were LCD Modules and Elastomeric LCD Displays and were part of Energy Meter. The relevant invoices also described the goods as "electronic part for energy meter". The drawing and literature which were provided did not specify the purpose.
(2.) The Deputy Commissioner, Customs (Adjudicating Authority), thus, passed orders dated 31.08.2001 holding that LCDs were classifiable under Chapter Heading 9028.90 and not under 9013.80 as claimed by the appellant. For classifying the goods under the aforesaid category, recourse to Rule 3(c) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the First Schedule Import Tariff was taken by the Adjudicating Authority. The Deputy Commissioner observed that even if he considered the goods to be devices, then only those LCD devices/displays which do not constitute articles provided for more specifically in other heading would cover in Chapter Heading 9013 and, accordingly, he took the view that the goods are specific part of the electricity meter and, thus, classified the same under Chapter Heading 9028.90 as parts of electricity meter.
(3.) The aforesaid order of the Adjudicating Authority has been affirmed by the Commissioner as well as CESTAT resulting into dismissal of appeals filed by the appellant herein. The decision of CESTAT reveals that appellant relied upon its earlier decision in the case of CCE, Bombay v. Universal Information Commn. Equipment Ltd.,1997 94 ELT 543 However, the Tribunal has held that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal has accepted the contention of the Revenue that the invoices issued by the supplier of the goods specifically mentioned that these were parts of electronic energy meters and even the appellant had admitted that these goods had to be issued as parts of energy meter.;