9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 264 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - Hard Disc Drives - benefit of concessional rate of duty under N/N. 12/2012-CE at SI. No.255 - whether classifiable under CTH 84717020 or under CTH 84717030? - Held that - The terms hard disk drive used in the notification has not been amplified either by adding external or internal . On this simple premise alone, exemption to the said item cannot be denied. - This Tribunal in the case of M/s. Fortune Marketing Pvt, Ltd. vide Final order, dated 24.08.2017 has already decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of CESTAT, Delhi in M/s. Supertron Electronics Pvt, Ltd. 2017 (1) TMI 1529 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The Hon ble Apex Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal CESTAT, Delhi 2017 (10) TMI 1281 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues: Classification of imported goods under Notification No. 12/2012-CE SI. No. 255 for concessional duty benefit.
Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of imported External Hard Disc Drives under CTH 84717020 for claiming concessional duty benefit under Notification No.12/2012-CE SI. No. 255. The department argued that the goods did not qualify for the exemption as they were external/removable Hard Disc Drives, not covered under the notification. 2. The appellant contended that the notification specifically referred to Hard Disc Drives, excluding external or removable HDD. They cited a previous decision by CESTAT, Mumbai, which denied exemption to similar goods. The appellant also highlighted a subsequent Supreme Court judgment dismissing an appeal related to the issue, suggesting finality in the matter. 3. On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the goods were classifiable under CTH 84717020, making them eligible for the exemption. Reference was made to the wording of the notification, which described the goods as HDD without any qualification, implying that any HDD could fit the description. 4. The Tribunal considered previous decisions, including one involving M/s. Fortune Marketing Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Supertron Electronics Ltd., where exemption was allowed for similar goods. The Tribunal also noted a subsequent judgment by CESTAT, Delhi, upholding the exemption for External/Removable HDD, based on an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. 5. The Tribunal observed that the Hon'ble Apex Court had dismissed the department's appeal against the decision of CESTAT, Delhi, in the case of M/s. Supertron Electronics Ltd., on the basis of the Office Memorandum. The issue was deemed settled in favor of the appellant based on this judgment. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the imported goods were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE SI. No. 255. The appeal filed by the department was dismissed, confirming the eligibility of the goods for the concessional duty benefit. This detailed analysis outlines the classification dispute, legal arguments presented by both parties, relevant precedents, and the final decision of the Tribunal in favor of the respondents regarding the eligibility of the imported goods for exemption under the specified notification.
|
