Case Law Details
Competition Team Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The issue is with regard to the classification of LCD panels and parts of LCD panels. The Department contends that both these items would fall under CTH 8529 9090 whereas the appellant contends that LCD panels would fall under CTH 9013 8010 and parts of LCD panels would fall under CTH 9013 9010. Learned Counsel for the appellant has taken us through the Customs Tariff with regard to classification of these items.
One of the main contentions put forward by the Department is that prior to the amendment Notification No. 92/2017-Cus. dated 14.12.2017, the appellants were classifying the goods under CTH 8529. In the amendment Notification No. 92/2017, the Basic Customs Duty of goods falling under CTH 8529 was enhanced to 7.5% and goods that fall under CTH 9013 enjoy nil rate of duty; the appellants could not have changed the classification to enjoy the benefit of the Notification. This argument of the Department has been countered by the Learned Counsel for the appellant stating that there is no estoppel in taxation.
Held by CESTAT
We are of the considered opinion that LCD panels are classifiable under CTH 9013 8010 and parts of LCD panels are classifiable under CTH 9013 9010. We do not find any reason to deviate from the ratio laid down in the decisions relied by the Learned Counsel for the appellant. As we hold the classifications to be under CTH 9013 8010 and CTH 9013 9010, the denial of exemption benefit to the appellant as per amendment Notification No. 92/2017-Cus. dated 14.12.2017 is without any factual or legal basis and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
