2017 (1) TMI 574 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 12/2012-CE - classification of imported mobile phone - denial on the ground that the condition of notification not satisfied with - the contention of the appellant is that the said issue has been examined by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case SRF Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT , wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has allowed the claim of the appellant. Held that - it appears that when the order in appeal was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the above mentioned judgements/orders were not available. In other words, the orders passed by Hon ble Supreme Court as well as passed by Tribunal are subsequent to the impugned order. When it is so then we deem it fit to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to examine the claim of the assessee in the light of judgements - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported mobile phones under Customs Tariff Item 8517 1290 and payment of additional customs duty at 12.5%. Applicability of concessional rate of CVD of 1% on import of mobile phones under Notification No. 12/2012-CE subject to conditions. Claim of benefit of exemption denied by Customs EDI system. Appeal against common order in appeal No. 507-568/2016.

Classification and Duty Payment:
The appellant imported mobile phones classified under Customs Tariff Item 8517 1290 and paid additional customs duty at 12.5% as per Schedule 1 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Concessional Rate of CVD:
Notification No. 12/2012-CE provided a concessional rate of CVD of 1% on import of mobile phones under CTI 8517, subject to the condition that the assessee should not have taken credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for inputs and capital goods used in manufacturing these goods.

Claim Denial and Appeal:
The Department consistently maintained that the condition for claiming the exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE could not be satisfied by imported goods, leading to denial of the benefit. The Customs EDI system also did not allow the appellant to claim the exemption, prompting the appeal against the common order in appeal No. 507-568/2016.

Legal Arguments and Decision:
During the hearing, the appellant's counsel cited a Tribunal decision and a Supreme Court judgment supporting the appellant's claim for exemption. However, these judgments were not available when the order in appeal was initially passed. Considering the subsequent judgments, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for denovo assessment within four months. The adjudicating authority was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing and allow the appellant to present additional evidence if necessary.

Final Decision:
The Tribunal allowed all the appeals by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a fresh assessment in light of the relevant judgments, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case and evidence.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for a fresh assessment based on subsequent judgments.