Case Details: Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (2025) 34 Centax 113 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pamidighanam Sri Narasimha & Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.
- S/Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Sr Adv., Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ravi Bharuka, AORs, Udai Khanna, Navanjay Mahapatra, Antariksh Singh, Advs
- S/Shri Vishal Agrawal, Akshit Malhotra, Shashank Chamoli, Advs
Facts of the Case
The appellant imported battery-operated Ultrasonic/Electromagnetic AMR water meters, and the classification of the goods was disputed between Heading 9026 and Heading 9028 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The jurisdictional authority proposed classification under Heading 9028 on the basis that the meters, in addition to measuring flow rates of water, indicated total quantity delivered to the consumer and had features for billing. The appellant contended that the impugned goods were essentially water meters whose principal function was flow measurement, and hence, they were classifiable under Tariff Item 9026 10 10 with reference to the Harmonized System explanatory notes. The Tribunal accepted this contention and held that the goods were classifiable under Heading 9026, ibid. The matter was thereafter placed before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had not committed any error in law or fact in classifying the impugned goods under Tariff Item 9026 10 10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It was observed that the impugned water meters, which measure flow rates of water besides indicating total quantity delivered and incorporating other additional features for billing, would fall under Heading 9026 and not under Heading 9028 in terms of the HS explanatory notes. The appeal filed under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962, was accordingly dismissed.
List of Cases Cited
- Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 34 Centax 112 (Tri. – Mum.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
