Page 282 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

720 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

6. The main contention of the department that the goods cannot be de-
scribed as Inkjet printer and cannot be classified under 8443 32 50 is that it cannot
be connected to an automatic data processing machine or net work. The cata-
logue of the goods furnished by the appellant along with the appeal in page 34
states that the item can be connected to net work by LAN TCP/ IP Cat. 5E and
that cable is to be supplied by the customer. The term “connectable to an ADP
Machine or to a net work” for the purpose of sub-headings 8443.31 and 8443.32
has been explained in the Explanatory notes which is as under :
“The criterion “capable of connecting to an automatic data processing ma-
chine or to a network” denotes that the apparatus comprises all the compo-
nents necessary for its connection to a network or an automatic data pro-
cessing machine to be effected simply by attaching a cable The capability to
accept the addition of a component (e.g., a “card”) that would then allow
the connection of a cable is not sufficient to meet the terms of these sub-
headings. Conversely, that the component to which a cable would be con-
nected is present but inaccessible or otherwise unable to effect a connection
(e.g., switches must first be set) is not sufficient to exclude goods from these
sub-headings.”
7. The Board’s Circular No. 11/2008-Cus., dated 1-7-2008 has also clari-
fied the same. It is stated in the circular that large format printers which satisfy
the conditions of connectability as given in HSN Explanatory Notes (as above)
are to be classified under Tariff Heading 8443 32 50 as “Inkjet Printers”. So the
conclusion arrived by the authorities below that the goods are not Digital Inkjet
Printers or that the goods are not capable of being connected to ADP or net work
and therefore is not classifiable under 8443 32 50 is against the clarification given
by the Board.
8. The Ld. Counsel has also produced the copy of Order-in-Appeal No.
180/2017, dated 14-3-2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II),
Chennai in the case of P.M. Digital Products, Chennai the goods imported there-
in were also Digital Inkjet Printers Scodix 1200 vide Bill of Entry dated 7-6-2012.
The appellant therein had classified the goods under 8443 32 90. The Department
issued show cause notice for reclassification under 8443 32 90. On appeal, the
Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the revised HSN Notes of 2012,
wherein the criterion for capable of being connected to an automatic ADP ma-
chine or to a net work, has held that the goods are correctly classifiable under
CTH 8443 32 90.
9. From the discussions made above, after examining the HSN Explan-
atory Notes and the Board’s circular, we hold that goods are correctly classifiable
under CTH 8443 32 50. The order passed reclassifying 8443 39 10 is erroneous
and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. The impugned order is set
aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in open Court)

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  282