L M L LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application being I.A. No. 3 was filed in this appeal and the same was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 26/02/2004. The dispute in the present appeal is between the customs authority and the assessee regarding liability to pay duty by the appellant. The Airport Authority of India has absolutely no role to play in the said dispute. The I.A. No. 3 was filed only because the consignment imported by the appellant is in the custody of the Airport Authority of India since 29.01.2002 but that cannot be a ground to allow the applicant to take part in the dispute of liability or otherwise of the appellant to pay the duty that is being decided in this appeal. We, therefore, do not wish to hear the applicant on the dispute between the parties as the contentions raised in the application have no relevance at all with the dispute which we have been called upon to resolve. The issue that is sought to be raised by the intervener could be a separate cause of action. We, however, clarify that we have not passed any adverse order against the intervener in our Judgment and Order passed today. Nothing further is required to be stated in so far the applicant is concerned.

(2.) The classification of "CD ROM" containing images of drawing and designs of engineering goods is the issue of dispute in the present Appeal. The present Appeal assails the judgment and order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (referred to herein as "CEGAT") which rejected the plea of the appellant that CD-ROM containing images of drawings and designs of engineering goods was classifiable under the Tariff Heading 49.06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff Act) as drawings for engineering purposes or under heading 49.11 as other printed matter. The alternative plea of the appellant for classifying the same under Sub-Heading Nos. 8524.39 or 8524.90 of the Tariff was also not accepted. Incidentally, the aforesaid stand taken by the CEGAT was by way of confirmation of the view taken by the Commissioner-Appeals.

(3.) The appellant herein filed a Bill of Entry No. 369686 dated 29.1.2002 for clearance of the goods at Nil rate of duty by claiming classification of the goods under the Tariff Heading 4906.00 read with Central Excise Tariff Heading 4901.90 coupled with the benefit of Nil rate of duty under Notification No. 17/2001 dated 1.3.2001. The import was made in the month of January, 2002 and the authorities were requested by the appellant to allow the clearance of the goods at Nil rate of duty. The Adjudicating Officer, however, decided the case against the appellant holding that the latter is not entitled to the aforesaid classification as claimed. The adjudicating authority recorded a finding that the imported goods are covered under Central Excise Tariff Heading 8524.90.