Bharath FIH Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that ‘Receiver’ being part of the phone is classifiable under CTH 8517. Thus, classification sought to be made by the Revenue under CTH 8518 lacks merit and hence, order is set aside.
Facts- The assesse-importer imported certain items vide various Bills of Entry declared as “Receiver” by classifying them under CTH 85177090, paid the Basic Customs Duty (BCD) at 5% thereby claiming the benefit under Notification No.50/2017-Cus. dt. 30.06.2017, for the period 04.07.2017 to 30.01.2018.
Entertaining a doubt that the “Receiver‟ imported by the assessee was classifiable under tariff item 85181000 which attracted BCD at 10% which was further increased to 15% w.e.f. 02.02.2018 vide the Notification No.57/2017 dt. 30.06.2017, the Revenue through the Commissioner issued Show Cause Notice dt. 04.05.2019 inter alia proposing to reclassify “Receiver” under CTH 8518, to demand differential duty u/s. 28 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with applicable interest u/s. 28AA ibid and penalty u/s. 112 (a) ibid. It also proposed to confiscate the goods in respect of some of the Bills of Entry u/s. 111 (m) and 111 (o) of the Act ibid. The duty demand, interest and penalty was confirmed.
