9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Eligibility of materials/sub-systems for Digital Electronic International Gateway Exchanges for benefit of Notification 59/88-Cus. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the determination of the eligibility of materials/sub-systems for Digital Electronic International Gateway Exchanges imported by the appellants for the benefit of Notification 59/88-Cus. The lower authorities had denied the benefit on the grounds that the Notification covered complete exchanges but not sub-systems. The appellants had imported an exchange equipped with a main processor capable of handling a significant number of call attempts per hour. The present import aimed to increase the capacity of the existing exchange by purchasing add-on modules for various systems. The Bill of Entry described the goods as materials for the first expansion of Digital Electronic International Gateway Exchanges. The appellants claimed assessment under a specific Customs Tariff sub-heading and paid duty accordingly. The appellants did not dispute the classification of the imported item under a particular sub-heading covering parts of electrical apparatus for telephony and telecommunication apparatus for digital line systems. The invoice detailed the components of the imported goods, including various sub-systems like Trunk and Signalling Sub-system, Group Switching Sub-system, and Central Processor Sub-system. The Notification 59/88 explicitly mentioned exemption for certain sub-systems but did not include the sub-systems claimed by the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the wording of the Notification was clear in covering only the complete Digital Electronic International Gateway Exchange at a specific entry in the table. The argument that subsequent import of sub-systems was to enhance capacity did not support the appellants' claim for exemption under the Notification. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative intention to provide exemption to sub-systems was not relevant in light of the explicit wording of the Notification. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no error in the lower authorities' decision and upheld the denial of the benefit of the Notification to the imported goods. The appeal was rejected, confirming the impugned order.
|
