2024 (8) TMI 1543 - AT - Customs

Entitlement for benefit of Notification dated 01.03.2005 as amended by Notification dated 11.07.2014 - imported Wireless Access Points/MIMO products falling under Customs Tariff Item CTI 8517 62 90 - HELD THAT - The matter is covered by a decision of this Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs (Air) Chennai - VII versus Redington (India) Ltd. 2023 (12) TMI 754 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that WAP imported by the appellant works on technology and does not support LTE standard. Beetal Teletech was therefore justified in claiming exemption from the whole of the customs duty under Serial No. 13 (iv) of the notification. It is however also pointed out by the learned authorized representative for the department that department has filed Customs Appeal No. 44 of 2024 before the Delhi High Court which is pending but no stay order has been granted. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT New Delhi, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Dilip Gupta and Hon'ble Shri P.V. Subba Rao, addressed an appeal filed by the department challenging the order dated 17.12.2019 by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. This order allowed M/s Compuage Infocom Ltd. an exemption from basic customs duty on imported "Wireless Access Points/MIMO products" under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8517 62 90, pursuant to a Notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by Notification dated 11.07.2014. The department contended that these products, even if incorporating LTE technology, did not qualify for the notification's benefits, prompting a show cause notice on 27.11.2018.The Tribunal noted that both parties acknowledged the matter was governed by a precedent set in Commissioner of Customs (Air), Chennai - VII versus Redington (India) Ltd. [(2023) 12 Centax 99 (Tri. - Del.)]. Despite the department's pending appeal (Customs Appeal No. 44 of 2024) before the Delhi High Court, no stay was issued. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, aligning with the precedent in Redington (India) Ltd. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court.