The assessee had imported ‘external hard disk drive’ and claimed exemption from CV duty under Notification No. 6/2006-CE, dated 1-3-2006 and later Notification No. 12/2012-CX, dated 17-2-2012. The Adjudicating Authority assessed the goods in question under Heading No. 8471 70 30 with effective CV duty of 12 per cent denying the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CX, dated 17-3-2012. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that ‘external hard disk drive’ was correctly classifiable under Heading No. 8471 70 20 and accordingly set aside the assessment order.
The classification of ‘external hard disk drive’ assumes significance because of concessional rate of duty available to only hard disk drive not to removable or exchangeable disk drives. The revenue considers the imported item under Heading No. 8471 70 30, whereas the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) held the product under Heading No. 8471 70 20. The later entry is eligible for concessional CV duty. The exemption notification specifies Tariff Heading up to six digits only, 8471 70, which covers both, hard disk drive and removable or exchangeable disk drives. Further the next column of the table for description explains the goods only as hard disk drive among many other items. On careful consideration of the technical specification furnished and the sample of imported item along with Tariff entries and the exemption notification, the Bench is in agreement with the findings in the impugned order. The term hard disk drive used in the notification has not been amplified either by adding ‘external’ or ‘internal’. On this simple premise alone, exemption to the said item cannot be denied. Admittedly the imported item is hard disk drive and is meant for external use with computer or laptop as plug-in device. It is portable hard disk drive. The contention of the revenue that it is only removable or exchangeable disk drive is not factually or technically correct. Further the technical opinion given by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology through office Memorandum dated 5-6-2013 is directly on the issue. In the appeal, the revenue contested the factual findings in the impugned order. Guided by the expert opinion of the concerned Ministry and facts recorded in the impugned order, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal filed by the revenue deserved to be dismissed.
Citation: [2018] 96 taxmann.com 317 (SC)