Case Details: Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-V vs. Benq India Pvt. Ltd. (2026) 40 Centax 206 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Manoj Misra & Manmohan, JJ.
- S/Shri N. Venkataraman, A.S.G., Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, V.C. Bharathi, Kshitiz Singh, Padmesh Mishra, Kartikeya Agarwal, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Adv., Ms Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR, Ms Neha Choudhary, Ms Nitum Jain, Swastik Mishra, Ms Medha Sinha, Advs., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant imported interactive flat panels (IFPs) comprising a display panel, operating system, processors, RAM memory, hard disk storage, input/output units such as keyboard, and associated software. The department contended that the goods should be classified under Tariff Item 8528 59 00 as display monitors. The appellant submitted that the panels are self-contained automatic processing units capable of executing programs, storing data, supporting programming languages including C++, Java, and Python, and performing logical operations without human intervention. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) examined the composition and functional capabilities of the panels and held that they meet all prerequisites of automatic data processing units under Chapter Heading 8471. The department filed the civil appeal against the order of CESTAT. The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court of India.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the civil appeal is reported beyond time by 278 days; however, the matter has also been examined on merits. Upon perusal of materials available on record and consideration of submissions made, the Court did not find any good reason to take a view different from that taken by the Appellate Authority as well as CESTAT. In view of the above, the civil appeal was dismissed both on delay and on the merits.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Commissioner v. BenQ India Private Limited — (2026) 40 Centax 205 (Tri. – Mumbai) — Affirmed [Paras 2, 3]
