9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 1036 - AT - CustomsDenial of exemption of Basic Customs Duty BCD - whether the cameras imported by the taxpayer namely Digital Still Image Video Cameras under 15 Bills of Entry was not eligible for the benefit of BCD exemption in terms of Sl. No. 13 of N/N. 25/2005? - HELD THAT - The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/S. NIKON INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) , NEW DELHI. 2024 (6) TMI 1422 - CESTAT NEW DELHI LB held that ' In the present case, there is no ambiguity in reading the Explanation of the Notification No.25/2003-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 as amended, in as much as, a literal interpretation of the said Explanation, as discussed above, reveals that all the three parameters/functions of a digital camera should be cumulatively read so as to ascertain whether all the characteristics are above the threshold limit; in that event, the digital camera would not be eligible to the exemption from BCD under the said Notification.' The Appellant s claim for the benefit of BCD exemption was perfectly in order and therefore, the Revenue was not justified in denying the same to the Appellant - the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 06.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Denial of exemption of Basic Customs Duty [BCD] to the taxpayer for imported cameras under Notification No.25/2005. Analysis: The taxpayer appealed against the denial of BCD exemption for imported cameras in the Order-in-Original No.341/2012. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the cameras were not eligible for the exemption under Sl. No. 13 of Notification No.25/2005 after considering the amended Notification dated 17.03.2012. The taxpayer argued that a Larger Bench of the Tribunal had previously decided in favor of importers for similar cameras, citing the case of M/s.Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports), New Delhi. The Assistant Commissioner supported the Commissioner's findings, referring to the Delhi Bench's decision in the case of M/s.Sony India and Others. The central issue was whether the Revenue was justified in denying the BCD exemption to the appellant. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized that in case of ambiguity in a charging provision, the benefit should be given to the assessee. It also highlighted that the burden lies on the claimant of the exemption to establish eligibility within the parameters of the exemption Notification. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was eligible for the exemption under Notification 25/2005 CE dated 1.3.2005 as amended, as their case fell within the parameters of the said Notification. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the Appellant's claim for the BCD exemption was valid, and the Revenue was not justified in denying it. Consequently, the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential benefits as per the law.
|
