VidhiSangh

Supreme Court of India · 29/03/2023

CCE, AURANGABAD versus M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR

[2023] 6 S.C.R. 259 · 2023 INSC 313

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

Two importers, a television manufacturer and a maker of car audio systems, classified imported LCD panels under tariff item 9013.8010 of the Customs Tariff as liquid crystal devices. The Revenue contended that, being used solely or principally in television sets and car audio systems, the panels were parts under headings 8529 and 8522 by virtue of Note 2(b) to Section XVI. The CESTAT accepted the importers' classification in both cases. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals: under Rules 1 and 3(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation and Note 1(m) to Chapter 85, which excludes articles of Chapter 90, the specific heading for liquid crystal devices prevails; Note 2 operates subject to Note 1 and cannot pull excluded goods back into Chapter 85; and Secure Meters is decisive that LCDs are not articles provided more specifically elsewhere.

Issues

  1. Whether LCD panels imported for use in television sets or car audio systems are classifiable as liquid crystal devices under tariff item 9013.8010 or as parts of such apparatus under headings 8529 or 8522 of the Customs Tariff.

Provisions considered

Held

Result

Revenue's appeals dismissed; CESTAT orders dated 06.01.2009 and 09.11.2021 classifying the imported LCD panels under tariff item 9013.8010 of the Customs Tariff upheld; no order as to costs.

Judgment PDF: Supreme Court of India, [2023] 6 S.C.R. 259.