ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras granting relief in respect of Item 3-100 Controller Cards. The Customs examination report of the imported showed that they were printed circuit. Therefore the benefit of exemption of Notification No. 232/83, dated 18-8-1983 was extended to the item.
2. The Revenue is contending in this appeal that the relevant Notification granted exemption to the goods falling within the Chapter 38 or Chapter 84 or 85 or 90 or 92 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act on the conditions stipulated therein of actual user etc. It is also stated that the expression “Printed Circuits and Printed Circuit Boards” appearing in the Notification would cover only conventional Printed Circuit Boards (say copper clad laminate boards) which have been worked upon. It is stated that it would not cover the goods described in the invoices as “Controller Card” and amplified in the examination report as “Printed Circuit Boards with components”. It is also stated that Printed Boards, worked upon and populated with components, would more appropriately be known as “assemblies” or “sub-assemblies”. The Revenue is also referring to the decision of the Collectors in conference on Tariff held on 8th September, 1986, who in consultation with Technical Adviser of the DGTD, came to a consensus that the expression ‘Printed and Circuit Boards’ appearing in the Notification would cover only “conventional Printed Circuit Boards” and not “Populated Printed Circuit Boards”. The Conference also noted that Customs Houses do not extend the benefit of Notification to the Populated Printed Circuit Boards i.e., Printed Circuits Boards mounted with components. The Revenue is also referring to the Explanatory Notes on ‘Printed Circuits’ appearing at Page 1449 of the CCCN (Section XIV, Heading 85.19), extract of which is reproduced hereunder :
“Printed Circuits
These circuits are made by forming on an insulating base, by any printing process (conventional printing or embossing, plating-up, etching, etc.) conductor elements (wiring), contracts or other printed components such as inductances, resistors and capacitors (“Passive” elements), other than elements which can produce, rectify, detect, modulate or amplify electric signals, such as diodes, triodes or other “active” elements. Some circuits may comprise only one of the elements listed above. Others combine several elements according to a pre-established pattern.
The insulating base material is generally flat but may also be in the shape of a cylinder, a truncated cone, etc. The circuit may be printed on one or both sides (double circuits). Several printed circuits may be assembled in multiple layers and interconnected (multiple circuits).
The present heading also covers thin-or thick film circuits consisted solely of passive elements.
The thin film circuits are formed by the deposition on glass or ceramic plates of specific patterns of metallic and dielectric film, by vacuum evaporation, cathode sputtering or chemical methods. The patterns may be formed by deposition through masks or by deposition of a continuous sheet with subsequent selective etching.
Thick-film Circuits are form by screen printing onto ceramic plates of similar patterns, using pastes (or inks) containing mixtures of powdered glass, ceramics and metals with suitable solvents. The plates are then furnace-fired.
Printed circuits may be provided with holes or fitted with non-printed connecting elements either for mounting mechanical elements or for the connection of electrical components nor obtained during the printing process. Film circuits are generally supplied in metallic ceramic or plastic capsules which are fitted with connecting leads or terminals.
2. Special attention is also drawn to the portion appearing on page 1450 (Chapter 85 – Heading 85.19 of the CCCN which reads as under :-
“Circuits-on which mechanical elements or electrical components have been mounted or connected are not regarded as printed circuits within the meaning of the present heading. They generally fall to be classified in accordance with Note 2 to Section XIV or Note 2 Chapter 90, as the case may be.”
3. It is stated that from the foregoing it would, therefore, appear that a mere copper clad laminate board, cut to size and worked upon or such a board mounted with passive components alone would fit into the description ‘Printed Circuit Boards’. A conventional Printed Circuit Boards, say, a copper clad laminate cut to size, worked upon and mounted with active components (such as semi-conductor devices) will more appropriately be termed as as-sesmblies or sub-assemblies. It is further stated that an assembly or a sub-assembly is not known in the trade as ‘Printed Circuit’ or “Printed Board’. Therefore, it is stated that the impugned item is not covered within description of the term “Printed Circuit” or “Printed Circuit Boards”. Hence, Collector (Appeals) has erred in granting the benefit of the Notification. In the appeal memo, reference is also made to Notification 233/83 which extends concessional treatment to “parts containing theremionic valves or transistors or similar semi-conductor devices or light emitting diodes or electronic micro-circuits or capacitors other than paper capacitors required for the manufacture of electronic equipment falling under Chapter 84, Chapter 85, Chapter 90 or Chapter 92 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff.” It is also stated that this Notification is also not applicable to the impugned goods.
4. We have heard Shri K.K. Jha, SDR for the Revenue and Shri M.P. Devnath, ld. Advocate for the importer.
5. Shri K.K. Jha, ld. SDR submits that this issue no longer res Integra as the issue has been finally decided in the matter of Radio Vision Company v. CC, Bombay Bench has laid down that populated Printed Circuit Boards and Printed Circuit Boards having transformers, electric compressors etc. is a populated PCB and rightly falls under Entry No. 100 in Appendix 2B and the licence produced, by the appellants is not valid and hence upheld the confiscation. The Bench also noted that the benefit of Notification 232/83 is not admissible because by virtue of Note 4 to Chapter 85, populated Circuit Boards is excluded from the coverage of Tariff Item 85.18/27. The ld. SDR also pointed out the grounds made by the Revenue in the appeal memo.
6. Shri M.P. Devnath, ld. Advocate for the importer filed a catalogue of the products and submitted that the item had parts like sockets and they are not component as such the item cannot be termed as populate PCB. It has to be considered as “Printed Circuit and Printed Circuit Boards.” It is his further contention the Notification 233/83 covers in the present case. On particular query from the Bench to explain which are the components which have been mounted with PCB, the ld. Advocate could not give details not product sample. He was also not in a position as say as how the Notification 233/83 applies to the facts of the case.
7. We have carefully considered the submission and perused the Notification and grounds made in the appeal memo, which have been extracted above. The ld. SDR cited the case of Radio Vision Company. On perusal of the entire material, we agree with the contention of the Revenue, that the term “Printed Circuit” and “Printed Circuit Boards” referred to in the Notification does not cover “Populated PCB”. It is an admitted fact that the PCB is mounted with components, as can be seen from examination report. From the catalogue produced by the ld. Advocate before us at this stage, it is seen that the PCB with sockets are also mounted with several other components. Therefore the item is not a plain PCB. It is pertinent to mention that this catalogue now produced cannot be verified, in absence of a sample of the item. Therefore we have to proceed on the basis of examination report, which clearly states “PCB with components”. Therefore the contention of the Revenue that the imported item is an ‘assembly’ or sub-assembly and it is excluded from the ambit of the Notification is required to be accepted. We have perused the Notification. It clearly indicates that circuits on which mechanical elements or electrical components have been mounted or connected are not regarded as ‘Printed Circuits’ within the meaning of the present Heading 85.19 of CCCN. It further clarifies that they generally to be classified in accordance with Note 2 to Section XIV or Note to Chapter 90, as the case may be. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the Revenue’s contention that the imported goods are not covered within the ambit of the description “Printed Circuit” and “Printed Boards” described in the Notification.
8. As regards claim of the lD. Advocate for granting benefit of the Notification 233/83, we have observed that the party has not substantiated their claim. Hence, we reject the claim also. We observe that the case cited by the ld. SDR in the case of Radio Vision Company applies on all fours. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.