MANU/SC/0042/2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 5373 of 2019 and 6715 of 2019

Decided On: 17.01.2023

Appellants: Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Now HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Respondent: Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva

and

Appellants: Lenevo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Respondent: Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Surya Kant and Vikram Nath

JUDGMENT

Surya Kant, J.

1. The question that arises for our consideration pertains to correct classification of Automatic Data Processing Machines (hereinafter, 'ADP') which are popularly known as 'All-in-One Integrated Desktop Computer' (hereinafter, 'Concerned Goods') under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter, 'First Schedule').

FACTS

2. The Appellants imported certain units of the Concerned Goods and classified them under 'Tariff Item 8471 50 00' as per the prevalent self-assessment procedure. During subsequent examination by the Custom Authorities, the Concerned Goods were classified under 'Tariff Item 8471 30 10', which was later confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Commissioner of Customs (Appeal). These findings were further affirmed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, 'CESTAT'), West Zonal Bench, Mumbai vide the impugned judgments dated 19.12.2018 and 24.06.2019.

3. While the rate of duty is same under both the Tariff Items, the method of computing them is different. Goods under 'Tariff Item 8471 30 10' attract the application of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944, which valued the excisable goods on the basis of percentage of retail sale price. In contrast, a classification under 'Tariff Item 8471 50 00' invites valuation based on price mechanism Under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 which would have effectively reduced the overall liability to pay the requisite duty. This difference in liability is the precise reason behind the present dispute regarding classification under the correct Tariff Item which calls for adjudication.

4. Before delving into the reasoning of the revenue authorities and CESTAT, which is more or less identical, it would be appropriate to reproduce the following relevant parts of the First Schedule:

Heading/Sub-Heading/Tariff Item1
(1)

Description of goods2
(2)

8471

Automatic data processing machines and units thereof; magnetic or optical readers, machines for transcribing data on to data media in coded form and mac........