Page 280 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

718 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

pugned Order-in-Appeal and reduce the redemption find to Rs. 1 lakhs and pen-
alty on Shri Rajesh Kumar Seth to Rs. 1 lakhs under Section 112 of Customs Act,
1962.
7. In above manner the appeal filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar Seth is al-
lowed partially by modification of impugned Order-in-Appeal and appeal filed
by Revenue is dismissed.
8. Miscellaneous application also gets disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 718 (Tri. - Chennai)
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
[COURT NO. III]
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (J) and Shri Anil G. Shakkarwar,
Member (T)
MONOTECH SYSTEMS LIMITED
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR), CHENNAI
Final Order No. 40574/2020, dated 21-2-2020 in Appeal No. C/42579/2014-DB
Printer - Digital inkjet printer, which is as per catalogue, able to be
connected to a network by LAN TCP/IP Cat. 5E, classifiable under Tariff Item
8443 32 50 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as Inkjet Printers and not under Tariff
Item 8443 39 10 ibid as Inkjet Machine. [paras 6, 7, 8, 9]
Appeal allowed
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 11/2008-Cus., dated 1-7-2008 ............................................................. [Paras 2, 7, 9]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri S. Balakumar, AC (AR), for the Respondent.
[Order per : Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (J)]. - M/s. Monotech Systems
Limited, Chennai, the appellants herein imported in the course of their business
“Scodix S 75 Digital Inkjet Printer” covered under the Bill of Entry dated 25-3-
2014 from M/s. Scodix Ltd., Israel. The above said imported goods of Scodix S 75
Digital Inkjet Printer was classified under heading as CTH 8443 32 50 and
claimed duty as per the heading as 0% BCD, 10% CVD, 2% and 1% Secondary
and Higher Education cess along with 4% SAD. The department was of the view
that the goods are correctly classifiable under CTH 8443 39 10 and the Bill of En-
try was reassessed accordingly. Against such order, the appellants filed appeal
before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the order impugned herein upheld
the classification ordered by the original authority. Hence this appeal.
2. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Shri S. Murugappan ap-
peared and argued the matter. He submitted that the appellant claimed classifi-
cation under CTH 8443 32 50 as “Inkjet Printer” with ‘Nil’ Basic Customs Duty.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  280