2014 (12) TMI 497 - AT - Central Excise

Import of batteries to be used for manufacture of mobile handsets and similar phones - Availment of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2005-Cus dated 01.3.2005 superseded by Notification No. 23/2010-Cus dated 27.2.2010 - Held that - There is no allegation that batteries are not used in the mobile handsets and phones manufactured and sold by them; there is no allegation that batteries are diverted; there is no allegation that batteries were not accounted for properly. The only allegation is that the batteries cannot be considered as part of mobile handsets and phones. In this regard, we find ourselves in agreement with the first submission that whether batteries can be considered as part or not is a question that would be decided by the Customs assessing authority and jurisdictional Central Excise officers do not have jurisdiction on it, prima facie, is correct. Further, we also find ourselves in agreement that it cannot be said that the appellants have not used the batteries for the purpose on which they were imported. batteries were received in an address different from the one indicated in the Bill of Entry - there is no case against the assessee at all - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether batteries imported for manufacturing mobile handsets qualify for concessional duty under specific notifications.
2. Whether the batteries were used in the manufacture of excisable goods as required by Customs rules.
3. Whether the change in the address of receipt of batteries affects the case.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellants imported batteries for manufacturing mobile handsets under concessional duty notifications. The Customs rules required the batteries to be used in the manufacture of excisable goods. The Revenue argued that batteries were not essential parts of mobile phones. However, it was noted that there was no evidence of diversion or improper accounting of batteries. The Tribunal agreed that the question of whether batteries are considered part of mobile handsets falls under Customs jurisdiction, not Central Excise officers. It was concluded that the batteries were used for the intended purpose of import.

Issue 2: The Commissioner (Appeals) raised a concern about batteries being received at a different address than indicated in the Bill of Entry. The appellants rectified this by providing an amended Bill of Entry as evidence. This rectification addressed the discrepancy, indicating compliance with the requirements.

Issue 3: The Tribunal found no case against the assessee based on the observations made. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief for the appellants. The stay application was also disposed of in favor of the appellants. The decision was pronounced in open court, providing clarity on the outcome of the case.