2018 (9) TMI 1602 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 21/2005-Cus. - whether a part of the accessory of a mobile handset would also qualify for exemption under N/N. 21/2005-Cus.? - Held that - There is no dispute that the mobile charger is an accessory of a mobile handset. Further, Tribunal in the case of TWENTY FIRST CENTURY BUILDERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS., NEW DELHI 2004 (8) TMI 428 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , has held that parts of accessory of a mobile phone cannot get the benefit which is otherwise available to the mobile phone or its accessory under Notification 21/2002. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported AC Pins under Customs Tariff Heading 85177090 for duty exemption under specific notifications.

Analysis:
The case involved the classification of imported AC Pins, parts of mobile phone chargers, under Customs Tariff Heading 85177090 to claim the benefit of duty exemption under Notification No.21/2005-Cus. The Department contended that the goods were not eligible for the said notifications, leading to an adjudication order demanding differential duties and ordering assessment at the merit rate. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order, prompting the appeal before the Tribunal.

During the hearing, the appellant's consultant argued that the AC pins should be considered accessories of mobile handsets, thus qualifying for the duty exemption notifications. The consultant cited various decisions supporting this interpretation, emphasizing the critical role of the AC pins in the mobile charger, which is an accessory to the mobile phone. In contrast, the respondent's representative supported the impugned order, referring to precedents where parts of cell phone batteries were not considered accessories, thus not eligible for duty exemptions.

The central dispute revolved around whether a part of the accessory of a mobile handset could qualify for duty exemption under Notification No.21/2005-Cus. The Tribunal noted that while the mobile charger is an accessory, the question was whether the AC pins could also be considered for the duty exemption. The Tribunal referenced decisions supporting both parties but ultimately relied on the precedent set by Twenty First Century Builders case, where it was held that parts of mobile phone accessories were not eligible for the duty exemption available to the mobile phone or its accessories under the said notification.

Based on the precedent and reasoning from Twenty First Century Builders, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority. The decision was made after considering the arguments presented by both sides and analyzing the relevant legal precedents in detail.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)