Face-Recognition Access Control Terminals Qualify As Automatic Data Processing Machines Under CTH 8471: CESTAT

HomeIndirect TaxesFace-Recognition Access Control Terminals Qualify As Automatic Data Processing Machines Under CTH...

Face-Recognition Access Control Terminals Qualify As Automatic Data Processing Machines Under CTH 8471: CESTAT

Indirect Taxes

Published on

03/12/2025

By Mariya Paliwala

Face-Recognition Access Control Terminals Qualify As Automatic Data Processing Machines Under CTH 8471: CESTAT

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

In a significant ruling impacting importers of biometric and AI-based hardware, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has held that face-recognition access control terminals qualify as Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Machines under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8471, and not as electrical machinery under CTH 8543 as alleged by the department. The…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Mariya Paliwala https://www.jurishour.in/

Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Tags
Face-Recognition

Face-Recognition Access Control Terminals Qualify As Automatic Data Processing Machines Under CTH 8471: CESTAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

Assessment Order Uploaded Under Wrong Portal Tab: Karnataka High Court Restores GST Appeal, Condones Delay

GST Penalty Order Passed Even One Day Beyond S. 129(3) Timeline Is Invalid: J&K HC

S. 73(2) of CGST Act Doesn’t Mandate 3-Month Gap Between SCN and GST Adjudication Order: Madras High Court

‘Bail Is the Rule’: Maharashtra Court Grants Bail to Three Accused in ₹2.82 Crore DRI Firecracker Smuggling Case

More like this

Assessment Order Uploaded Under Wrong Portal Tab: Karnataka High Court Restores GST Appeal, Condones Delay

GST Penalty Order Passed Even One Day Beyond S. 129(3) Timeline Is Invalid: J&K HC

S. 73(2) of CGST Act Doesn’t Mandate 3-Month Gap Between SCN and GST Adjudication Order: Madras High Court

About us

Company

Categories