Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Excel Circuits P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Excel Circuits P. Ltd. vs Collector of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 21, 1997
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/11548

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Excel Circuits P. Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of Customs

Legal References

Reported In
(1997)(94)ELT670TriDel

Excerpt

1. the appellants herein imported 1 no. of pulse width modulator module ga-4564-1 vide bill of entry dated 20-10-1989 and cleared the same on payment of duty on 21-10-1989 as goods covered by cth 8473.30. later, they preferred a refund claim for refund of duty on 28-11-1989 on the ground that the imported item is driller/router consisting of central processing unit and i/o cards which interface the machine and the cpu.the controller also consists of tape recorder and battery back up units. the spare module 'pulse width modulator' is mounted integral to the machine and controls the position of x axis, y axis or axis motors and on this basis, the importers asked for refund on the ground that the goods should have been assessed under cth 8466.93 as parts of drilling machine. the assistant collector, however, held that the goods being populated pcbs would not merit classification under heading 8466.93. the lower appellate authority has noted in para 3 of the impugned order that the goods imported are essentially pcbs as admitted by the importers and hence, they cannot be considered as parts of machine. though he has observed that the goods figure more specifically in cth sub-heading 85.34, yet he has upheld the classification as confirmed by the assistant collector and rejected the appeal before him.2. we have heard mrs. r. pant, learned sdr and perused the records since the appellants have asked for a decision on merits.3. we find that since the goods are admittedly populated pcbs, in the absence of any material on record to substantiate the claim of the importers that they are parts of drilling machine and fall for classification under cth 84, with reference to catalogue or other technical material, there is no reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below and we see no infirmity in the order and accordingly uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal as unsubstantiated.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants herein imported 1 No. of pulse width modulator module GA-4564-1 vide Bill of Entry dated 20-10-1989 and cleared the same on payment of duty on 21-10-1989 as goods covered by CTH 8473.30. Later, they preferred a refund claim for refund of duty on 28-11-1989 on the ground that the imported item is driller/router consisting of central processing unit and I/O cards which interface the machine and the CPU.The controller also consists of tape recorder and battery back up units. The spare module 'pulse width modulator' is mounted integral to the machine and controls the position of X axis, Y axis or axis motors and on this basis, the importers asked for refund on the ground that the goods should have been assessed under CTH 8466.93 as parts of drilling machine. The Assistant Collector, however, held that the goods being populated PCBs would not merit classification under Heading 8466.93. The lower appellate authority has noted in para 3 of the impugned order that the goods imported are essentially PCBs as admitted by the importers and hence, they cannot be considered as parts of machine. Though he has observed that the goods figure more specifically in CTH sub-heading 85.34, yet he has upheld the classification as confirmed by the Assistant Collector and rejected the appeal before him.

2. We have heard Mrs. R. Pant, learned SDR and perused the records since the appellants have asked for a decision on merits.

3. We find that since the goods are admittedly populated PCBs, in the absence of any material on record to substantiate the claim of the importers that they are parts of drilling machine and fall for classification under CTH 84, with reference to catalogue or other technical material, there is no reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below and we see no infirmity in the order and accordingly uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal as unsubstantiated.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial