Page 260 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

698 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

2020 (373) E.L.T. 698 (Tri. - Chennai)
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
[COURT NO. IV]
S/Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (T) and P. Dinesha, Member (J)
COMPUAGE INFOCOM LTD.
Versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUS., CHENNAI
Final Order No. 40071/2020, dated 6-2-2020 in Appeal No. C/41027/2019-DB
Demand - Import of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) camera from
Korea - Adjudicating Authority demanding duty by classifying product under
Tariff Item 8525 80 90 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and denying benefit of Noti-
fication No. 152/2009-Cus. (Sl. No. 833) - Affirmed by Appellate Authority - On
appeal : No dispute that assessee itself had classified product under Tariff
Item 8525 80 90 ibid in its Bill of Entry under dispute and thereby effectively
prevented Revenue from questioning further - No entry specifically for CCTV
cameras - Nothing to show that CCTV cameras, which according to assessee
are neither digital cameras nor video camera recorders, would fall under cate-
gory of television cameras itself - Product cannot be classified under television
camera, but rightly under “Others” for period in dispute - Order to be affirmed
- Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 6.1, 6.2, 7]
Appeal rejected
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate, for the
Appellant.
Ms. Sridevi Taritla, Authorized Representative (AR),
for the Respondent.
[Order per : P. Dinesha, Member (J)]. - Brief facts are that the appellant
filed a Bill of Entry No. 6280158, dated 7-5-2018 for the clearance of ‘Closed Cir-
cuit Television (CCTV) Cameras’ and since the goods were of Korean origin, the
appellant, under the self-assessment scheme, assessed the same at ‘Nil’ rate of
Basic Customs Duty (BCD) in terms of Notification No. 152/2009-Cus. (Sl. No.
833), dated 31-12-2009.
1.2 The Assistant Commissioner of Customs/Adjudicating Authority
did not accept the nil rate of BCD and hence, charged BCD at the rate of 15% vide
Speaking Order issued in F.No. S. Misc. 506/2018-Gr.5A-ACC, dated 29-6-2018,
against which the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of
Customs (Appeals), Chennai and who vide impugned Order-in-Appeal AIR. C.
Cus.-I No. 83/2019, dated 26-3-2019 having rejected the appeal, the present ap-
peal has been filed against the same before this forum.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri Hari Radhakrishnan,
Learned Advocate, appeared for the assessee-appellant and Ms. Sridevi Taritla,
Learned Departmental Representative, appeared for the Revenue-respondent.
3.1 Learned Advocate for the appellant, taking us through the state-
ment of facts, grounds-of-appeal and also documents like the impugned Bill of
Entry placed in the appeal folder, would inter alia submit that the Adjudicating
Authority should have accepted the classification of the CCTV under CTH 8525

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  260