Utt. HC: Conditional Liberty Must Override Statutory Embargo Under NDPS Act  ||  Utt. HC: While Exercising Inherent Jurisdiction, HC Does Not Function As Court of Appeal or Revision  ||  Pat. HC: Alcohol Consumption Cannot be Conclusively Proved Through Breath Analyzer Report  ||  Ker. HC: Emp. Messaging in Pvt. Whatsapp Group About Safety of Company Doesn’t Attract Disc. Proc.  ||  Ker. HC: Circular Issued to Enable Service of Notice, Summons Through E-Post in Trivandrum  ||  Gau. HC: Compensation Denied Over Death of Man Not Proved to be Bonafide Passenger  ||  Madras HC: Public Service is Being Performed by Lawyers, They Cannot be Denied Funds  ||  Gau. HC: Compensation Awarded to Wife of Deceased Driver Enhanced  ||  Bom. HC: Bar Council of Mah. & Goa Directed to Take Action Against Lawyer Who Appeared Without Band  ||  Delhi High Court: Bail Granted to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in Liquor Policy Scam Case    

C.E.G.S.T., Delhi-I Vs. S.B. Industries - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (14 Jan 2019)

Once it is held that power bank is also a kind of mobile charger, benefit of Notification will be available



In facts of the present case, the Respondent assessee was engaged in the manufacture of power bank/portable mobile charger out of imported components. Respondent have registered themselves with the Central Excise Department for availing facility of import of goods at concessional rate of duty under the Notification No. 12/2012/Customs dated 13th March, 2012, as amended. They have also got themselves registered under the Customs (Import of goods at the Concessional rate of duty for Manufacture of Excisable goods) Rules, 1996 for import of inputs and parts of the mobile battery charger falling under the CFSTH 8504 40 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1986. Whether Commissioner (Appeal), in his order has rightly held that benefit of aforesaid Notification is available to the power bank as mobile battery charger.

The Customs has classified the 'power bank' under Heading No. 8504 40 30. This Customs classification for the product is also based on the HSN commodity description as in the case of Central Excise Tariff. The uniformity in the classification has to be maintained by the Revenue Appellant. It cannot be a case of Revenue that for the Customs classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and Central Excise Tariff, 1986, there can be two classifications for the same product on the ground that both the Customs and Excise Tariff are aligned to the HSN Classification of the goods.

Therefore, Commissioner (Appeal) concluded that the 'power bank' is not an accessory of the mobile phone and on that ground that, the power bank is not sold in retail market along with package of mobile phones and power bank is separate electric item having independent identity in the market. Mobile phone does not depend on a power bank in order to function and being manufactured and marketed without power bank.

There is no infirmity in the order of Commissioner in view of his reasonable findings. Further, in present case, although the Ministry has issued the clarification to the Respondent regarding the classification of 'power bank' as the 'accumulator' but the same cannot be treated as a circular issued by the Board as to make it mandatory on the part of the Adjudicating Authority to follow the same. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeal) has considered the same and rightly deferred with the classification as decided by the Ministry on the basis of his well reasoned arguments.

Once it is held that power bank is also a kind of mobile charger, automatically the benefit of the Notification will be available to the Respondent. It is on record that, in this case, the goods imported are part and input of power bank (portable mobile battery charger and is entailed for the purpose of use in same, the benefit cannot be denied). The Respondent is entitled for the benefit of Notification. The appeal filed by the Revenue dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved