2011 (3) TMI 1110 - AT - Customs

Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 - whether the impugned goods namely co-axial cables imported by the respondents are entitled to duty exemption under Sl.No. 28 of the Customs Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 - original authority in his order has denied the exemption classifying the impugned goods under sub-heading 8544.20 - Held that - Subheadings 8544.40, 8544.50 and 8544.60 cover other electric conductor - These subheadings would cover such conductors which are other than those described previously under the preceding subheadings such as 8544.10, 8544.20 and 8544.30, i.e., conductors other than winding wire, co-axial cable, and ignition wiring sets would be covered under the latter subheadings the coverage being limited to other electric conductors - Since the impugned notification specifies subheadings 8544.41 and 8544.49 under Sl. No. 28 and 8544.51 under Sl. No. 29, co-axial cables not being covered by these subheadings stand excluded from the coverage of the said notification - The structure of the notification including specified items classified under specified sub-headings of the tariff, namely 8544.41 and 8544.49 clearly keeps the co-axial cables classified under the heading 8544.20 out of the scope of the exempted notification - Decided in favour of revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of duty exemption for imported co-axial cables under Customs Notification No. 25/2005-Cus.
2. Classification of the imported co-axial cables under the correct tariff heading.
3. Interpretation of the exemption notification conditions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Duty Exemption:
The primary issue is whether the imported co-axial cables are entitled to duty exemption under Sl.No. 28 of the Customs Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005. The original authority denied the exemption, classifying the goods under sub-heading 8544.20, while the lower appellate authority allowed it, leading to the department's appeal.

2. Classification of Imported Goods:
The classification of the imported co-axial cables is crucial. The department's representative argued that for the goods to be eligible for exemption, they must meet both the description in column (3) and the classification in column (2) of the notification. The co-axial cables fall under sub-heading 8544.20, which is different from the specified sub-headings 8544.41 and 8544.49 in the notification. Therefore, the exemption cannot be granted as the goods do not fall within the specified tariff headings.

3. Interpretation of Exemption Notification Conditions:
The notification's language clearly requires goods to meet both the description and classification criteria. The department emphasized that the exemption conditions must be strictly construed. The appellate authority's decision to allow the exemption based on description alone was challenged, arguing that both conditions must be satisfied.

Detailed Analysis:

Eligibility of Duty Exemption:
The department contended that the exemption conditions outlined in Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. must be strictly construed. The goods must meet both the description and classification conditions. The co-axial cables, classified under sub-heading 8544.20, do not meet the classification requirement specified in the notification (8544.41 or 8544.49). Therefore, the exemption cannot be granted.

Classification of Imported Goods:
The classification of the co-axial cables under sub-heading 8544.20 was not disputed by the respondents. However, they argued that the description under Sl.No. 28 of the notification covers the impugned goods. Despite this, the tribunal found that the classification requirement is crucial. The co-axial cables, classified under 8544.20, do not fall within the exempted sub-headings 8544.41 or 8544.49. Therefore, they are not eligible for the exemption.

Interpretation of Exemption Notification Conditions:
The tribunal emphasized the need for strict adherence to the exemption notification conditions. The notification specifies that for goods to be exempt, they must meet both the description and classification criteria. The appellate authority's decision to grant exemption based on description alone was incorrect. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in HICO Products Ltd., which highlighted the importance of meeting both conditions for exemption.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the lower appellate authority's order and restored the original authority's order, denying the exemption. The departmental appeal was allowed, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with both the description and classification conditions specified in the exemption notification.

← Previous Next →