Commr. of Customs, Bangalore v. M/s Acer India Pvt. Ltd.

_-(_ A ## COMMR. OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE v. MIS. ACER Il'IDIA PVT. LTD. ## OCTOBER 12, 2007 B ## [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] _Computers (Additional Duty) Rules, 2004-r. 2-Levy of Additional duty under-On Imported Notebook/Laptop Compute;s-_ c _Permissibility-Held: Not permissible-Notebook/Laptop Computers is an integrated item and not a set of CPU with Monitor, Mouse and Key-Board-The Rules being a taxing statute should be construed strictly-Customs Tariff Act, i975-Tariff Jtem 8471-Jnterpretation of Taxing statutes._ D The question for consideration is whether Notebook Computer (Laptop Computers) are "CPU with Monitor, Mouse and Keyboard imported together as a set" classified under SI. No. 2 of table in Rule 2 of the Computers (Additional Duty) Rules, 2004 and in terms whereof E would the said goods be subjected to an additional duty of 7%. ## Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: A laptop or a notebook being an integrated item cannot be said to be a set of a CPU with monitor, mouse and key board. The F traditional desktops, computers and monitors are known differently in commercial parlance. A desktop computer is a combination of a CPU with monitor, mouse and key board imported together as a set. What is, thus, covered by the above is a set of items brought together and capable of being put together to make a computer. A Notebook G Computer, on the other hand, comes in an integrated and inseparable form. It is, as such, not a combination of CPU, Monitor, mouse and key board. A set although in view of the dictionary meaning may mean a complete apparatus but it should consist of more than one item, each complementing the work of another and retaining their individual identity H 558 --,/ > ...._ .... ~ COMMR. OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE _v. MIS._ ACER 559 INDIA PVT. LTD. [SINHA, J.] all the time. Whereas a desktop computer comprising of a CPU with all A the aforementioned accessories do not lose its individual identities and' not only are marketable as separate items but are also used separately,, a laptop computer cannot be said to be a set of the said parts. Computers (Additional Duty) Rules, 2004 is a taxing statute. It is required to be, construed strictly. B B [Paras 11, 20 and 21] [563-G, H; 564-A, B, C; 569-B-C] 1 ...- _Godrej Soaps Private Limited_ v. _A.K. Bandyopadhyay and Ors.,_ . (1981) ELT 555 (Born.) _ManishMaheshwariv.Asstt. Commissionerofincome TaxandAnr.,_ C (2007) 3 SCALE 627; _Southern Pet!'"ochemical Industries Co. Ltd._ v., _Electricity Inspector and E. Tl 0. and Ors.,_ (2007) 7 SCALE 392, referred to CIVIL APPELLATE nJRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2321 of 2007. D From the Final Order No. 1532/06 dated 13.09.2006 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench at Bangalore in Appeal No. C/135/2005. Mohan Parasaran, ASG., K. Swamy and B. Krishna Prasad for the E Appellant. M.P. Devanath and Monish Panda for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. I. Revenue is in appeal before us aggrieved by F and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 13.09.2006 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench , at Bangalore in Appeal No. C/135 of2005 dismissing an appeal upon an order dated 28.12.2004 by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. G A. 2. The question which falls for our consideration herein is as to whether notebook computers (laptop computers) are "CPU with monitor, mouse and keyboard imported together as a set" classified under SL No. 2 of the Table in Rule 2 of the Computers (Additional Duty) Rules, 2004 H COMMR. OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE _v. MIS._ ACER 561 INDIA PVT. LTD. [SINHA, J.] -- ) ...- materials, components and ingredients of the same nature as; or A similar to those, used in the production or manufacture of such article, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that such imported article shall, in addition, be liable to an additional duty representing such portion of the excise duty leviable on such raw materials, components and ingredients as, in either case, may be B determined by rules made by the Central Government in this behalf. ( 4) In making any rules for the purposes of sub-section (3 ), the Central Government shall have regard to the average quantum of the excise duty payable on the raw materials, components or C ingredients used in the production or manufacture of such like article." ,.) 8. The purpose oflevying an additional duty is absolutely clear and unambiguous. It is to protect the domestic manufacturers. It provides for a level playing field. Entry 8471 of Chapter 84 of the Schedule appended D to the said Act _inter alia_ provides for 'automatic data processing machines and units thereof. The relevant entries are as under: |"8471 30|-|Portabledigitalautomaticdataprocessing<br>machines,weighing notmorethan10kg,<br>consistingofatleastacentralprocessingunit,<br>akeyboardandadisplay:| |---|---|---| |8471 3010|---|Personalcomputer| |8471 30 90|---|Other| ||~~-~~|Other digital automatic data processing<br>machines:| |847141|--|Comprisinginthesamehousingatleasta<br>centralprocessingunitandaninputandoutput<br>unit,whetherornotcombined:| |84714110|---|Microcomputer| |84714120|---|Largeormainframecomputer| SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. 562 |84714190|---|Other| |---|---|---| |8471 49 00|--|Other,presentedintheformofsystems| |8471 50 00|-<br>-|Digital processing units other thanthoseof<br>sub-headings847141or847149,whether<br>ornotcontaininginthesamehousingoneor<br>twoofthefollowingtypesofunit:storageunits,<br>inputunits,outputunits| |8471 60|-|Inputoroutputunits,whetherornotoontaining<br>storageunitsinthesamehousing:| |8471 60IO|---|Combinedinputoroutputunits| |***||***| |8471 60 30||Monitor| |8471-60 40|---|Keyboard| |8471 60 50|---|Scanners| |8471 60 60|---|Mouse| |8471 60 90|---|Other"| 9. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Sub-section (3) read with Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the F Customs Tariff Act made rules known as Computers {Additional Duty) _Rules,_ 2004, Rule 2 whereof reads as .under: "2. Levy of additional duty.- The Central Government, having regard to the average quantum of duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), G on monitor, motherboard, key board, mouse, and other parts and components used in the manufacture of the computers which are exempt from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under the First Schedule to the said Central Excise Tariff Act, specifies that the additional duty leviable under sub-section (3) of section· H _)_ COMMR. OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE _v. MIS._ ACER 563 INDIA PVT. LTD. [SINHA, J.] 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act shall be equal to the rates specified A in column (3) of the Table below in respect of the goods, when imported into India, specified in corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table and falling within heading 8471 of the First Schedule to the said Customs Tariff Act, namely:- B Table ||Table|| |---|---|---| |S.No.<br>-|Descriptionofgoods|Additional<br>duty rate| |(1)|(2)|(3)| |1.|Centralprocessingunit(CPU)|6%ad<br>valorem| |2.|CPUwithmonitor,mouseandkey<br>board,importedtogetherasaset;<br>butnotincludingCPUimportedseparately<br>andinputoroutputdevicesoraccessories<br>suchasmonitor,keyboard,mouse,<br>modem,uninterruptedpowersupplysystem<br>orwebcameraimportedseparately.|7%ad<br>valorem| 10. A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would clearly go to show that levy of 7% _ad valorem_ additional duty is provided having regard to the average quantum of duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act on monitor, motherboard, key G board, mouse and other parts and components used in the manufacture of the computers. 11. The traditional desktops, computers and monitors are known differently in commercial parlance. A desktop computer is a combination of a CPU with monitor, mouse and key board imported together as a H 564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. A set. What is, thus, covered by the above is a set of items brought together and capable of being put together to make a computer. A~ rtotebook computer, on the other hand, comes in an integrated and mseparable fonn. It is, as such, not a combination of CPU, Monitor, mouse and key board. A set although in view of the dictionary meaning may mean .a complete B apparatus but it should consist of more than one item, each complementing the work of another and retaining their individual identity ~ all.the .... _ _j _.J'_ 1 tlme. : Whereas a desktop computer comprising of a CPU with all the aforementioned accessories do not lose its individual identifies and not only are marketable as separate items but are also used separately, a C laptop computer cannot be said to be a set of the said parts. ~ Y 12. Furthermore, what would be the method of determination of duty when the goods imported consisted of set of articles is contained in Section 19 of the Customs Act which reads, thus: D E F G "Section 19 - Determination of duty where goods consi~ of articles liable to different rates of duty Except as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force, where goods consist of a set of articles, duty shall be calculated as follows :- (a) articles liable to duty with reference to quantify. shall be chargeable to that duty ; (b) articles liable to duty with reference to value shall, if they are liable to duty at the same rate, be chargeable to dutf af that rate, and if they are liable to duty at different rates, be chargeable to duty at the highest of such rates ; ·- - -n '' ( c) articles not liable to duty shall be chargeable to ~µty at the rate at which articles liable to duty with reference to value,are liable under clause (b) : ## Provided that,- • ., • t l "' ~ (a) accessories of, and spare parts or maintenance and,repairing implements for, any article which satisfy the conditiolli? specified in the rules made in this behalf shall be chargeable at the same rate of duty as that article; H ) COMMR. OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE v. M/S. ACER 565 INDIA PVT. LTD. [SINHA, J.] (b) if the importer produces evidence to the satisfaction of the A . proper officer regarding the value of any of the articles liable to different rates of duty, such article shall be chargeable to duty separately at the rate applicable to it." 13. The learned counsel for the parties have placed before us B specifications of the types of computers imported by the respondent in order to show that they are known differently. Laptop is defined in Wikipedia as wider: "A laptop computer, or simply laptop (also notebook computer or notebook), is a small mobile computer, which usually weighs C 2.2-18 pounds (1-6 kilograms), depending on size, materials, and other factors. Laptops usually run on a single main battery or from an external , AC/DC adapter which can charge the battel)' while also supplying D power to the computer itself. Many computers also have a 3volt cell to run the clock and other processes in the event of a power failure. As personal computers, laptops are capable of the same tasks as a desktop computer, although they are typically less powerful for E the same price. They contain components that are similar to their desktop counterparts and perform the same functions, but are miniaturized and optimized for mobile use and efficient power consumption. Laptops usually have liquid crystal displays and most of them use different memory modules for their random access F memory (RAM), for instance, SO-DIMM in lieu of the larger DIMMs. In addition to a built-in keyboard, they may utilize a touchpad (also known as a trackpad) or a pointing stick for input, though an external keyboard or mouse can usually be attached." G 14. The learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that the said description of a laptop would clearly go to show that for the purpose of classification there is not much difference between a laptop and a, desktop. From Wikipedia itself, it appears that a desktop computer is described as under: tI 566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11. S.C.R. A B "A desktop computer is a computer made for use on a desk in an office or home and is distinguished from portable computers such as laptops or PDAs. Desktop computers are also· krtown as microcomputers. There are four types of desktop coniptlte_rs:"_home computers, or personal computers; workstations, Internet servers, and special communications computers. . · . , c Desktops are currently the most affordable computers and ubiquitous in businesses, schools, and households; they are.used for performing office tasks, organizing digital photos, video editing, and Internet access .. Nearly all desktop computers are r!iodular, with components that can easily be replaced or upgraded. Desktop computers come in a variety of case styles ranging from large vertical towers to small form factor models that can be tucked behind an LCD monitor. D Desktop computers are commonly connected to a power strip." 15. From what has _been noticed hereinbefore, it would appear that a micro computer is also known as a desktop computer. Micro computer E is specifically mentioned in Entry 8471 41 IO as an item separate to the other items. Entry 8471300, however, speaks of personal computer. We have noticed hereinbefore, that monitor, key boards, scanners, mouse, etc. have been classified separately. 16. It is, thus, evident that in common parlance a desktop or a micro F computer is different from a laptop or PDA. The distinction between a laptop and a desktop computer would further be evident from-the history of Wikipedia wherein _inter alia_ it is stated: G H "Laptops' upgradeability is severely limited, both for technical and economic reasons. As of 2006, there is no induStry-wide standard form factor for laptops. Each major laptop vendor pursues its own proprietary design and construction, with the result that laptops are difficult to upgrade and exhibit high repair costs. With few exceptions, laptop components can rarely be swapped between laptops of competing manufacturers, or even between laptops from ) COMMR. OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE v. _MIS._ ACER 567 INDIA PVT. LTD. [SINHA, J.] the different product-lines of the same manufacturer. Standard A feature peripherals (such as audio, video, USB, 1394, WiFi, Bluetooth) are generally integrated on the main PCB (motherboard), and thus upgrades often require using external ports, card slots, or wireless peripherals. Other components, such as RAM modules, hard drives, and batteries are typically user- B upgradeable. Many laptops have removable CPUs, although support for other CPUs is restricted to the specific models supported by the laptop motherboard. The socketed CPUs are perhaps for the c manufacturer's convenience, rather than the end-user, as few manufacturers try new CPUs in last year's laptop model with an eye toward selling upgrades rather than new laptops. In many other laptops, the CPU is soldered and non-replaceabie. [7] Many laptops also include an internal MiniPCI slot, often occupied D by a WiFi or Bluetooth card, but as with the CPU, the internal slot is often restricted in the range of cards that can be installed. The widespread adoption of USB mitigates I/O connectivity to a great degree, although the user must carry the USB peripheral as a separate item. E E NVidia and A TI have proposed a standardized interface for laptop GPU upgrades (such as an MXM), but again, choices are limited compared to the desktop PCie/AGP after-market." 17. We have referred to wikipedia, as the learne~ counsel for the F parties relied thereupon. It is an online encyclopaedia and information can be entered therein by any person and as such it may not be authentic. However, it is not disputed that a laptop and a desktop is differently known in commercial parlance. G Furthermore, we are required to determine this issue on interpretation of the relevant entries contained in the schedule of Customs Tariff Act. 18. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the Tribunal cannot be H \ 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS , [2007] ·11 S.C.R. ~ A said to have committed any error in opining: ' . 1 it " ... Hence the two items are totally different though capable of performing same or similar functions, but one canilot be mistaken for the other ... " _/_ ~ · • r ~ , B c D E F G 19. We may notice that a learned Single Judge o(the;Bombay High Court in _Godrej Soaps Private Limited_ v. _A.K BandY,opadhyay and Ors.,_ (1981) ELT 555 (Born.) in a case involving import of animal compound feed consisting of several ingredients held as wider: I l'T '-,,.t~ "12. Now Section 19 of the Customs • Act speaks • ofa ~.,II •of. case ~ I _f_ where goods consist of "set of articles". In the present case, the goods viz. the animal compound feed does not consi~ of a set of articles for, as stated above, there is only one identifiable article viz. animal compound feed. In order to attract the provisions of Section 19 there must be a collection of articles or otherwise there must be a collection or aggregation of two or more individual and severally indentifiable articles, which is not the case here. In the present case, the goods are made up of several ingredients, which have all lost . their indentities and have become inseparable even by common processes, and have in fact emerged as a single in~ketable product. Section 19 of the Customs Act has, therefore, no application whatsoever, and if this is the position, then there is no question of holding that it comes within the compass of Item No. 19 of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Tariff. 13. I may here add that in interpreting Section 19 of the Customs Act along with Item No. 19 of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Tariff, the Respondents_ pressed into seryice the two notifications referred to in the impugned orders and it was strenuously contended by the Respondents that on construing these notifications, it must be held that the goods in question were covered under Section 19 of the Customs Act and came within the scope ofltem No. 19 of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Tariff. Ordinarily, I would have dealt with this argument of the Respondents in detail, but Mr. Taraporwala, the learned Counsel ..,.. _., i _k_ H ) c _>_ COMMR. OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE v. _MIS._ ACER 569 INDIA PVT. LTD. [SINHA, J.] for the Petitioners pointed out that the said notifications applied to A Item No. 21 of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Tariff and the language thereof could not be stretched to interpret either Section 19 of the Customs Act or Item No; 19 of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Tariff. Mr. Taraporwala's contention was and is in order and I accept the same. In view of this, it is not B necessary for me to deal with the said argument." .. 20. We, therefore, are of the opinion that a laptop or a notebook being an integrated item cannot be said to be a set of a CPU with monitor, mouse and key board. 21. Furthermore, the Computers (Additional Duty) Rules, 2004 is a taxing statute. It required to be construed strictly. [See _Manish Maheshwari_ v. _Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.,_ (2007) 3 SCALE 627 and _Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd_ v. _Electricity Inspector and E.Tl.O. and Ors.,_ (2007) 7 SCALE 39l. D So construed, we are of the opinion, that the interpretation by the Tribunal is in consonance with the aforementioned rules of interpretation. 22. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. No costs. K.K.T. Appeal dismissed. E