Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
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.
|