Case Details: Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-V vs. Brio Interactive Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2026) 43 Centax 354 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Manoj Misra & Manmohan, JJ.
- S/Shri N.Venkataraman, A.S.G., Ms Ritu Bala, Padmesh Mishra, Madhav Sinhal, Ms Neelakshi Bhadauria, Advocates, & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The assessee imported interactive flat panel displays and classified them under Tariff Item 8471 41 90 of the Customs Tariff Act on the ground that the imported goods combined a CPU, monitor and input in a single unit and possessed automatic data processing capability. The department disputed the classification. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the imported goods were neither monitors nor projectors and were classifiable under Tariff Item 8471 41 90. Aggrieved by the order of CESTAT, the department filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court held that the issue was already covered by its earlier decision in Benq India Pvt. Ltd., wherein an identical issue had been decided. Accordingly, it declined to interfere with the order of CESTAT, holding that the imported interactive flat panel displays, which combined a CPU, monitor and input in a single unit and possessed automatic data processing capability, were neither monitors nor projectors but were classifiable under Tariff Item 8471 41 90 of the Customs Tariff Act. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
List of Cases Cited
-
- Commissioner v. Benq India Pvt. Ltd. — (2026) 40 Centax 206 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 1]
List of Cases Reviewed
-
- Brio Interactive Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 37 Centax 269 (Tri.-Bom) — Affirmed [Para 2]
