9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 918 - AT - Central ExciseEligibility for benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 and N/N. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 - parts imported and used in the manufacture of telecom racks - extended period of limitation - penalties. HELD THAT - From the facts, it is clear that the imported parts classified under different Tariff Headings are used in the manufacture of outdoor cabinets which is called as Telecom Racks by the appellant and the outdoor cabinets are ultimately cleared by the appellant to M/s. Ericsson. The outdoor cabinets are enclosures with doors and panels made to specified dimension and fitted with various items such as fans, filters, cables, etc. They provide necessary cooling, cable entry and electrical connection for the complete function of BTS. The enclosures protects the BTS from dust and rain. It is supplied to M/s. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. who in turn mount the outdoor BTS inside the outdoor cabinet and integrated sub racks to generate signals as a Base Trans receiver Station . This Tribunal has considered in Raydean Industries case 2022 (4) TMI 1155 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , the claim of the appellant that Module Mounting Structures whether could be considered as part of Solar Power Generating System . Sl. No.332 of the N/N. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 allowed Non-conventional Energy Device specified in List 8. The appellant claimed the parts as Solar Power Generating System where a specific mention about the parts consumed within the factory and production of such parts for manufacture of the goods specified at Sl. No.1 to 20 has been prescribed. In the instant case the use of imported parts were in the manufacture of Outdoor cabinets, which were cleared to M/s Ericson, who further uses the same in the manufacture and clears it to licensed Telecom service provider to be used as BTS. Needless to mention the principle strict interpretation has to be applied in extending the benefit of an exemption Notification as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Kumar and Co. s case 2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT . Thus, the appellants are not eligible to the benefit of exemption Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 as amended and Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dated 17.3.2012 for the imported parts, classifiable under various subheading of the Tariff Act, which in turn used in the manufacture of outdoor cabinets/Telecom Racks, which subsequently used by M/s Ericson in the manufacture of BTS to Telecom service provider classifying the same BTS system. Time Limitation - Penalty - HELD THAT - The appellant has been importing the said materials declaring the description of the goods correctly mentioned as above classifying the same under respective Tariff Heading - no facts was suppressed from the knowledge of the department about import of the said parts and its use in the manufacture of outdoor cabinets/Telecom Racks by the Appellant which had been cleared to M/s Ericson as part of BTS system.; therefore, invoking extended period of limitation in confirming the demand cannot be sustained. Consequently, imposition of penalty on the appellant and personal penalty on individuals also not warranted and accordingly are set aside. Since it is held that the appellants are not eligible to avail the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002 Cus. 12/2012 Cus. with regard to the imported goods used in the manufacture of outdoor cabinet, the application by the appellant in compliance with Condition 5 of the said Notifications read with Import of Goods at Concessional Rate for Manufacture of Excisable Goods (IGCRME) Rules, 1996 has been rightly denied by the lower authorities. The denial of the benefit of the Notification No.21/2002 Cus. 12/2012 Cus. is upheld; the demand for the extended period is set aside and the demand with interest be restricted to the normal period - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of imported parts used in the manufacture of telecom racks for exemption under Notification No.21/2002-Cus. and Notification No.12/2012-Cus. 2. Applicability of the extended period of limitation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of Imported Parts for Exemption: The appellant imported various parts claiming exemption under Notification No.21/2002-Cus. and Notification No.12/2012-Cus. for the manufacture of telecom racks, which they argued are integral parts of Base Trans-receiver Stations (BTS). The parts included radial/centrifugal fans, temperature control modules, CS lock tongues, lamp cables, and more. The appellant contended that these parts, when assembled into telecom racks, form a critical component of BTS, thus qualifying for the exemption. The Tribunal, however, noted that the imported parts were used to manufacture outdoor cabinets, which were then supplied to Ericsson. Ericsson would integrate these cabinets with other components to create a functional BTS. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption notifications should be strictly interpreted. It concluded that the imported parts were not directly used in the manufacture of BTS but were intermediary goods. Therefore, the appellant did not qualify for the exemption under Notification No.21/2002-Cus. and Notification No.12/2012-Cus. The Tribunal referenced several cases, including *Raydean Industries Ltd.*, where it was held that exemption notifications must be strictly construed. The principle of strict interpretation led to the denial of the exemption claim by the appellant. 2. Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation: The appellant argued that there was no intent to evade duty, and all necessary declarations were made to the authorities. The Tribunal found that the appellant had correctly described the imported goods and obtained necessary permissions for their use in manufacturing telecom racks. Since there was no suppression of facts or misstatement, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Consequently, the demand for duty was restricted to the normal period, and the imposition of penalties on the appellant and its employees was set aside. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the denial of the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus. and Notification No.12/2012-Cus. for the imported parts used in the manufacture of outdoor cabinets. The demand for the extended period was set aside, and penalties were not warranted. The appeal was disposed of with the demand and interest restricted to the normal period.
|
