9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 79 - AT - CustomsDuty exemption benefit under Entry No. 512 of N/N. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 - import of parts and components used in the manufacture of power banks - denial of benefit on the ground that this benefit will apply only to parts and components of lithium-ion batteries - HELD THAT - An identical question was before this bench in Customs Appeal No. 55572 of 2023 M/s XO or Technologies LLP vs. Principal Commissioner 2024 (10) TMI 297 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and in M/s Ambrane India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)- New Delhi 2024 (10) TMI 911 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . In both appeals it was decided that parts of power banks were eligible for exemption under notification number 50/2017-Cus (S. No. 512). Conclusion - The appellant was eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus for the parts and components used in manufacturing lithium-ion batteries even if these were used in power banks. Appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue considered in this judgment was whether the appellant, M/s TDK India Pvt Ltd, was eligible for the duty exemption benefit under Entry No. 512 of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017. Specifically, the question was whether the exemption applied to parts and components used in the manufacture of power banks, as opposed to lithium-ion batteries, which the Revenue contended was the only eligible use under the exemption. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework centered around Notification No. 50/2017-Cus, which provided exemptions for parts, components, and accessories used in the manufacture of lithium-ion batteries, excluding those for mobile handsets. The interpretation of the term "manufacture" under Rule 3(e) of the IGCR Rules, 2017, was crucial, as it defined manufacture as a process resulting in a new product with a distinct name, character, and use. The Tribunal also considered previous decisions in similar cases, such as Customs Appeal No. 55572 of 2023 and Customs Appeal No. 50221 of 2021, which supported the appellant's position. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted the term "manufacture" by considering the IGCR Rules, 2017, which required that imported parts and components be processed to result in a new product. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's process of assembling lithium-ion cells with other components to form a lithium-ion battery constituted manufacturing under this definition. The Tribunal also emphasized that the notification did not require the final product to be a lithium-ion battery, allowing for the manufacture of intermediate products like batteries used in power banks. Key evidence and findings: The appellant imported various parts, including lithium-ion cells, cables, and protective casings, which were used to manufacture lithium-ion batteries. The process involved connecting cells with nickel strips and using insulation materials to ensure safety and functionality. The Tribunal found that the appellant's manufacturing process resulted in a new product, a lithium-ion battery, which satisfied the definition of manufacture under the IGCR Rules, 2017. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the legal framework to the facts by determining that the appellant's manufacturing process met the requirements of the exemption notification. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's use of imported parts to produce lithium-ion batteries, even if subsequently used in power banks, was eligible for the exemption. Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal addressed the Revenue's argument that the exemption should only apply to lithium-ion batteries and not power banks. The Tribunal rejected this interpretation, noting that the notification's language did not restrict the exemption to the final product being a lithium-ion battery. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a strict interpretation of the notification, which did not support the Revenue's narrower view. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus for the parts and components used in manufacturing lithium-ion batteries, even if these batteries were subsequently used in power banks. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal's significant holding was that the exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus applied to the appellant's import of parts and components used in manufacturing lithium-ion batteries. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification did not require the final product to be a lithium-ion battery, allowing for the manufacture of intermediate products. The Tribunal reiterated the importance of a strict interpretation of exemption notifications, as established in previous case law, and rejected the Revenue's narrower interpretation. Core principles established: The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that exemption notifications should be interpreted strictly according to their language. It also highlighted that the definition of "manufacture" under the IGCR Rules, 2017, should guide the interpretation of such notifications, focusing on the emergence of a new product with a distinct name, character, and use. Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal determined that the appellant was eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus for the parts and components used in manufacturing lithium-ion batteries, even if these were used in power banks. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellant.
|
