Case Law Details
Fujifilm India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that benefit of Basic Customs Duty BCD under notification no. 25/2005 eligible in case of import of ‘Digital Still Image Video Cameras’. Accordingly, appeal allowed with consequential benefits.
Facts- The taxpayer, feeling aggrieved by the denial of exemption of Basic Customs Duty [BCD] to them in the Order-in-Original No.341/2012 dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Gr.5A), Chennai which having been upheld in Order-in-Appeal by the First Appellate Authority, Chennai has filed this appeal.
In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the cameras imported by the taxpayer namely “Digital Still Image Video Cameras” under 15 Bills of Entry was not eligible for the benefit of BCD exemption in terms of Sl. No. 13 of Notification No.25/2005. The same was held so after considering the amended Notification dated 17.03.2012.
Conclusion- The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nikon India Pvt. Ltd has held that all the three parameters/functions of a digital camera should be cumulatively read so as to ascertain whether all the characteristics are above the threshold limit; in that event, the digital camera would not be eligible to the exemption from BCD under the said Notification. In the event any one of the parameter/characteristic is below the threshold limit e.g. recording time is less than 30 minutes in a single sequence using the maximum storage (including expanded) capacity, then the cameras would be eligible to the benefit of the said Notification. Also, the Revenue has never claimed that there is ambiguity in the said Notification. On the contrary, the Learned Special Counsel in the written submission mentioned that there is no ambiguity in the wordings of the Notification and it should be literally interpreted with in the legal frame work. The appellant in the present case also fairly established that their case falls within the four corners of the said Notification by adducing evidence discussed above. In view of above, it can fairly be inferred that the appellants are eligible to exemption from BCD under the said Notification 25/2005 CE dated 1.3.2005 as amended.
Held that we are of the clear view that the Appellant’s claim for the benefit of BCD exemption was perfectly in order and therefore, the Revenue was not justified in denying the same to the Appellant. Resultantly, the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 06.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
The taxpayer, feeling aggrieved by the denial of exemption of Basic Customs Duty [BCD] to them in the Order-in-Original No.341/2012 dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Gr.5A), Chennai which having been upheld in Order-in-Appeal by the First Appellate Authority, Chennai has filed this appeal. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the cameras imported by the taxpayer namely “Digital Still Image Video Cameras” under 15 Bills of Entry was not eligible for the benefit of BCD exemption in terms of Sl. No. 13 of Notification No.25/2005. The same was held so after considering the amended Notification dated 17.03.2012.
2. Vrinda Bagaria, learned Advocate arguing for the taxpayer, would contend, at the outset, that the eligibility of BCD exemption on the similar cameras has been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in favour of the importers in the case of M/s. Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports), New Delhi vide Interim Order No.69/2024 dated 14.06.2024 (in Appeal No. C/52218/2019) the Larger Bench has even considered the amended Notification dated 17.03.2012 and, therefore, she would urge that the issue is no more Res Integra.
3. Per contra, Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Assistant Commissioner supported the findings of the Commissioner. She has placed reliance on the order of Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. Sony India and Others – 2018-TIOL-763-CESTAT-DEL.
4. We have considered the rival contentions and we have carefully perused the documents placed on record; we have also carefully gone through the orders relied upon by the contesting parties. The only issue that arises for our consideration is, “Whether the Revenue was justified in denying the benefit of BCD exemption to the appellant”?
5. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nikon India Pvt. Ltd [supra] which is heavily relied upon by the appellant, has held as under:
34. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment reveals that in case of ambiguity in a charging provision, the benefit must be given to the assessee and in case of an exemption Notification, the benefit of ambiguity is strictly interpreted in favour of the Revenue. This ratio has been laid down by the Constitutional Bench while overruling the earlier decision in Sun Export Corporation v. Collector case [1997 (93) E.L.T. 641 (S.C)]. To apply the said ratio to the facts of a case, presence of ambiguity in the subject for interpretation is a sine qua non. If there is no ambiguity in the interpretation of the exemption Notification, the same should be liberally interpreted adopting the tools of interpretation applicable to a Notification granting exemption from payment of duty. Also, it is essential that the burden lies on the claimant of the Exemption to establish that this case falls within the parameters of the exemption Notification. In the present case, there is no ambiguity in reading the Explanation of the Notification No.25/2003-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 as amended, in as much as, a literal interpretation of the said Explanation, as discussed above, reveals that all the three parameters/functions of a digital camera should be cumulatively read so as to ascertain whether all the characteristics are above the threshold limit; in that event, the digital camera would not be eligible to the exemption from BCD under the said Notification. In the event any one of the parameter/characteristic is below the threshold limit e.g. recording time is less than 30 minutes in a single sequence using the maximum storage (including expanded) capacity, then the cameras would be eligible to the benefit of the said Notification. Also, the Revenue has never claimed that there is ambiguity in the said Notification. On the contrary, the Learned Special Counsel in the written submission mentioned that there is no ambiguity in the wordings of the Notification and it should be literally interpreted with in the legal frame work. The appellant in the present case also fairly established that their case falls within the four corners of the said Notification by adducing evidence discussed above.
35 In view of above, it can fairly be inferred that the appellants are eligible to exemption from BCD under the said Notification 25/2005 CE dated 1.3.2005 as amended.”
6. In view of the above, we are of the clear view that the Appellant’s claim for the benefit of BCD exemption was perfectly in order and therefore, the Revenue was not justified in denying the same to the Appellant. Resultantly, the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 06.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 12.12.2024)
Author Bio
