9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1066 - AT - CustomsConcessional rate of CVD - N/N. 6/2002-CE dt. 01/03/2002 - Held that - Tribunal in the case of IBM INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE 2009 (5) TMI 299 - CESTAT, BANGALORE has held that when this server is a computer, it conforms the definition of computer and when it falls under 84.71 as given in the entry in the notification then the benefit cannot be denied - benefit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01/03/2002 and subsequent amendments for concessional rate of CVD on imported Central Processing Units (CPU). Analysis: The appellant, engaged in the import and sale of information technology products, imported CPUs during February to June 2004 and claimed the concessional rate of CVD as per Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01/03/2002 (Sl.No.261). An explanation was inserted by way of amendment vide Notification No. 23/2004 dated 09/07/2004. The lower authorities did not grant the benefit of concessional duty, leading to a demand for the differential duty. The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No.75/2007 dated 28/06/2007. The issue revolved around the applicability of the amended explanation inserted in 2004 for the earlier period and whether the appellant was entitled to the exemption (para. 1). During the hearing, the consultant for the appellant argued that the amended explanation from 2004 should be applicable for the earlier period based on a Tribunal decision in the case of IBM India Ltd. The consultant contended that since the issue was decided in their favor in the IBM India Ltd. case, the exemption should be available to them as well (para. 3). Upon perusal of the Tribunal's decision in the IBM India Ltd. case, it was noted that the issue centered around whether the servers imported by the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 6/2002, as amended. The Tribunal analyzed the various amendments made to the notification and concluded that the amendment in 2004 clarifying that the computer includes CPUs cleared separately had retrospective effect. Therefore, the imported CPUs were considered eligible for the exemption, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with the consequential benefit of the notification (para. 4-5).
|
