2025 (6) TMI 1020 - AT - Customs

Denial of the benefit of N/N. 25/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 - Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) - denial of benefit of such notification on the basis of the CTH 8504 40 holding that the product in question shall not be eligible for the benefit of exemption on the ground that the usage of the said goods are not specific to any particular Automatic Data Processing (ADP) machine - HELD THAT - On perusal of the case records more specifically the adjudication order dated 30.04.2024 it is found that the original authority had referred to the Co-ordinate Bench decision rendered in the case of Cyber Power System India Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2024 (2) TMI 875 - CESTAT KOLKATA relied upon by the appellants. However he had not recorded any findings on such decided case on the ground that the outcome of the decision passed by the Coordinate Bench is not known to the department. It is evident from such observation made by the original authority and upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the issue arising out of the present dispute has already been dealt with in favour of the importer in the case of Cyber Power System India. Thus different interpretation cannot be placed to decide the present appeals differently. Conclusion - UPS devices are entitled to the customs duty exemption under the relevant notification. The interpretation requiring exclusive use for data processing equipment was rejected as unsupported by the notification s language and established legal principles. There are no merits in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed in favour of the appellants.

Summary

The core legal question considered in this judgment is whether the benefit of Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005, which grants customs duty exemption, applies to "Uninterrupted Power Supply" (UPS) devices classified under CTH 8504 40. Specifically, the issue is whether such UPS devices qualify for exemption under the notification as "Static Converters for Data Processing Equipment," given that their usage is not exclusive to any particular Automatic Data Processing (ADP) machine.

The Tribunal examined whether the denial of exemption by the authorities below was justified, focusing on the interpretation of the notification's scope and the classification of the goods. The question of whether the usage of the UPS must be exclusive to data processing equipment to qualify for exemption was central to the dispute.

Regarding the relevant legal framework, the Tribunal relied heavily on the text of Notification No. 25/2005-Cus., which exempts customs duty on "Static Converters for Data Processing Equipment" classifiable under Chapter 8504 40. The Tribunal emphasized the settled principle that exemption notifications must be strictly construed according to their clear and plain meaning, without adding or deleting words. This principle was supported by precedents from the apex court, including Hansraj Gordhandas Vs. NH Dave (AIR 1970 SC 755) and Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP Vs. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. (AIR 1961 SC 1047), which establish that exemption notifications are to be read literally and not extended beyond their terms.

The Tribunal referred to a Coordinate Bench decision in Cyber Power System India Vs. Commissioner of Customs, which had earlier considered the identical issue and ruled in favor of the importer. The Tribunal noted that the original adjudicating authority had referenced this decision but did not record any findings on it, citing uncertainty about the department's acceptance of that ruling. The Tribunal rejected this reasoning, holding that the earlier decision was binding and that a different interpretation in the present case was impermissible.

In analyzing the classification and eligibility of the UPS under the notification, the Tribunal examined the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HSN) explanatory notes for Chapter 8504. The HSN notes define static converters to include rectifiers, inverters, AC and DC converters, gas discharge converters, electrolytic rectifiers, and stabilized suppliers such as UPS for a range of electronic equipment. The Commissioner had interpreted this to mean that while UPS devices are classifiable under CTH 8504 40, they do not qualify for exemption because they are not exclusively used for data processing equipment.

The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's interpretation that exclusivity of use was required. It held that the notification does not contain any wording requiring the goods to be used "exclusively" for data processing equipment. The Tribunal underscored that the exemption applies as long as the goods meet the description of "Static Converter for Data Processing Equipment" and that dual or multiple uses are immaterial. This interpretation aligns with the plain language of the notification and the settled legal principle that exemption notifications cannot be extended or restricted by adding conditions not explicitly stated.

The Tribunal also addressed the allegation of malafides by the Commissioner, finding no basis for such an imputation. It noted that the importer had truthfully declared the goods and submitted technical literature to establish the nature of the imported UPS devices. The technical parameters confirmed that the UPS falls within the scope of static converters as defined in the HSN notes.

Applying the law to the facts, the Tribunal concluded that the UPS devices imported by the appellant are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. The denial of exemption by the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore erroneous. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals.

The Tribunal's reasoning firmly establishes that the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. extends to UPS devices classified under CTH 8504 40, regardless of whether their use is exclusive to data processing equipment. The key principle is that the goods must meet the description of "Static Converter for Data Processing Equipment," and no further end-use verification or exclusivity is required.

Significant holdings include the Tribunal's statement: "There is nothing restricting the claim of the said exemption, as long as the imported goods meet the said description. Their duality of use or exclusivity of usage are immaterial." Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that "an exemption notification is to be read into strictly and no word can be added or deleted thereto; there being no room for intendment and regard is to be given to the clear meaning of the words."

In conclusion, the Tribunal determined that the UPS devices are entitled to the customs duty exemption under the relevant notification. The interpretation requiring exclusive use for data processing equipment was rejected as unsupported by the notification's language and established legal principles. The appeals were allowed accordingly.