Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1298 - CESTAT BANGALOREImport of batteries to be used for manufacture of mobile handsets and similar phones - actual user condition - benefit of N/N. 21/2005 dated 1.3.2005 superseded by Notification No.23/2010 dated 27.2.2010 denied - entire case of the Revenue is that the batteries imported by the appellants were not used in the process of manufacture of the finished goods viz., mobile phones or other phones, hence cannot be treated as the parts and accessories of the said mobile phones or other phones - Held that:- This Tribunal has consistently held in its various decisions that when mobile/other phones cannot work without batteries, they are to be considered as parts of the mobile phones - reliance placed in the case of CC (Imports) Chennai vs. Vuppalamrita Magnetic Components Ltd. [2016 (5) TMI 989 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - thus, the imported batteries are essentially parts and accessories of the mobile phones and the benefit of exemption under Notification 21/2005 dated 1.3.2005 is admissible to them - decided in favor of appellant. Denial of benefit alos on the ground that while filing the Bill of Entry, appellants have shown the address of the premises which was not the same as the premises in respect of which the Bond was executed - Held that:- N/N. 21/2005 itself is admissible on the basis of the certificate given by the jurisdictional officer and in terms of Bond executed before him. When the certificate was issued for a particular premises and a Bill of entry filed indicating some wrong address of the same person, the error in mentioning address cannot be anything but a clerical error - Because the certificate indicating the correct address was part of the assessment documents. The error in address subsequently been rectified also. It is not the case of the Department that the goods were not received in the premises where they were meant for. It is also not the case that goods have not been duly accounted for. In his order the Asst. Commissioner has only stated that records for accountal and assessments were not produced before him. If such records were required, Asst. Commissioner could have called for a report on verification of receipt and usage of the said goods and thereafter, adjudicated the matter - adjudicating authority should afford an opportunity to the appellants to produce the documents with records to receipt and accountal of the said goods in the premises where the Bond have been executed and thereafter, take a final view with regards to the admissibility of benefit of exemption Notification. The matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority for consideration of the documents with regards to receipt and usage of the goods at the premises for which the Bond was executed - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|