2026-VIL-916-CESTAT-CHE-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-916-CESTAT-CHE-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Classification of Liquid Crystal Display panels as components of automotive instrument clusters – Appellant imported Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) panels for use in manufacturing Automotive Instrument Clusters (AIC) and classifies them under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9013 as Liquid Crystal Devices attracting nil duty - Revenue contends that since the LCD panels are solely designed and meant for use in motor vehicles, they should be classified under CTH 87089900/87149010 as parts and accessories of motor vehicles, attracting Customs duty - Whether LCD panels merit classification under CTH 90138010 as declared by the importer or under CTH 87089900/87149010 as parts of motor vehicles as contended by the Revenue – HELD - The goods must be assessed to duty in the condition in which they are imported and not how they become after use. The point of taxation is at the time of import and not at a later stage of manufacturing. The CTH 9013 specifically provides for Liquid Crystal Devices not constituting articles provided more specifically in other headings, and the Explanatory Notes clarify that such more specific description must be by nomenclature or naming of the product or group of products. The terms "parts and accessories" cannot be construed as a more specific description by nomenclature - The Section Note 2 clause (g) of Section XVII specifically excludes articles of Chapter 90 from the scope of Chapter 87, and Section Note 3 merely conveys that classification of parts and accessories under Chapter 87 is conditional upon satisfying the sole or principal use condition and cannot override other statutory factors for classification - Following the ratio of the Supreme Court in Videocon Industries Limited and other cases, it is held that CTH 9013 being specific to LCDs, and parts and accessories of motor vehicles under CTH 8708/8714 being generic and not more specific in heading, the LCD imported merits classification under CTH 9013. The decisions cited by the revenue pertaining to classification of nuts, bolts and nameplates are distinguished as those decisions involved classification of items already falling within the ambit of Chapter 87 under the Central Excise Tariff Act and not import of an item like LCD becoming a component of AIC for ultimate use in motor vehicles - The appeal is allowed - Charge of misdeclaration and suppression and applicability of extended period of limitation - Revenue contends that the importer has deliberately mis-declared the goods by not indicating the intended purpose or end-use in the Bills of Entry and has thereby suppressed information, justifying invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 – HELD – The Section 46 of the Customs Act does not mandate indication of the usage of items at the time of import. The Adjudicating Authority has sustained the charge of suppression on the ground that other importers mentioned end-use in their Bills of Entry, which is legally flawed as what should be declared must be statutorily mandated and voluntary declarations by others do not cast an obligation on others to do the same without statutory prescription - When an SCN relies on certain documents to level a serious charge of suppression, copies of such documents are expected to be furnished to the noticee, which was not done in the present case despite repeated requests. The importer has clearly described the goods in the Bills of Entry as LCD/Liquid Crystal Device/Liquid Crystal Display matching with the descriptions in the respective invoices issued by foreign suppliers. The goods were in most cases physically inspected by Customs officials before clearance, if officers had any doubt regarding correctness of classification, they should have called for further information and ensured correct declaration through re-assessment under Section 17 - Since the description of goods has been correctly stated, nothing has been suppressed from the knowledge of the Department. The issue being interpretational in nature, the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) is unwarranted - The appeal is allowed on limitation as well.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Recent Updates: GSTAT, EWB...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?