2004 (6) TMI 380 - AT - Customs

CESTAT Bangalore: Stay Application Denied for Printer Mechanism Exemption Eligibility

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD Versus LAMPEX ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore rejected the stay application in the case concerning the eligibility of the 'Printer Mechanism' for exemption ... Eligibility to benefit of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. Issues:1. Stay of operation of Order-in-Appeal 21/2003 (H-II) Cus.2. Eligibility of 'Printer Mechanism' for exemption under Notification 17/2001-Cus.Analysis:1. The Revenue sought a stay of the operation of Order-in-Appeal 21/2003 (H-II) Cus., dated 7-10-2003, contending that the imported item 'Printer Mechanism' is not eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification 17/2001-Cus. The Commissioner (Appeals) had granted the benefit of exemption, but the Revenue argued that the item falls under the exclusion clause of the notification, which includes items like Populated Printed Circuit Boards (PPCBs), Motherboards, and Power Supply Units. The Tribunal noted that a previous stay application related to the same issue was rejected, indicating that the issue is arguable. Therefore, the current stay application was rejected, and the appeal was required to be linked with other related appeals for a comprehensive hearing.2. The main issue revolved around the eligibility of the 'Printer Mechanism' for exemption under Notification 17/2001-Cus. The Revenue contended that the item did not qualify for the exemption due to the presence of assemblies of various parts within the mechanism. They argued that the notification specifically excludes certain items, and since the 'Printer Mechanism' contains assemblies, the benefit of the notification should not be extended to it. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the Revenue and the Consultant for the Respondent, ultimately upholding the decision to reject the stay application based on the arguable nature of the issue. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a comprehensive hearing involving multiple related appeals to address the matter effectively.In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore highlighted the nuanced interpretation of the eligibility criteria for exemption under Notification 17/2001-Cus concerning the 'Printer Mechanism.' The decision to reject the stay application was based on the arguable nature of the issue, as previously indicated in a related case. The Tribunal stressed the importance of consolidating multiple appeals related to the same issue for a thorough and comprehensive hearing, ensuring a fair and just resolution in line with legal principles and precedents.