TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal classifies imported hard disk drives under CTH 8471 70 20, grants concessional duty rate.</h1> <h3>Manoj Gupta, Manish Agarwal, Fortune Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Nirmal Kumar Meharia, Vishnu Kumar Bhandari And Supertron Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC (Import) ACC, Mumbai</h3> Manoj Gupta, Manish Agarwal, Fortune Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Nirmal Kumar Meharia, Vishnu Kumar Bhandari And Supertron Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC ... Issues Involved:1. Classification of imported external/portable hard disk drives.2. Eligibility for concessional rate of duty under specific Exemption Notifications.3. Validity of demand of duty with interest and penal action by invoking the extended period.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Imported External/Portable Hard Disk Drives:The core issue was whether the imported goods, 'external/portable hard disk drives,' should be classified under CTH 8471 70 20 as 'Hard disk drives' or under CTH 8471 7030 as 'Removable or Exchangeable Disc Drives.' The Tribunal noted that the imported goods were declared under CTH 8471 70 20 and used externally with a CPU via USB or other interfaces. The description and invoices were undisputed. The Tribunal referred to clarifications from Seagate and other technical opinions, which indicated that both internal and external hard disk drives are used as storage devices and should be classified under CTH 8471 70 20. The Tribunal found that the data media in the imported drives were not removable or exchangeable, thus they should not be classified under CTH 8471 7030. The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods were correctly classified under CTH 8471 70 20 as 'Hard disk drives.'2. Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Duty:The Tribunal examined whether the appellants were eligible for a concessional rate of duty under Exemption Notification Nos. 6/2011 CE and 12/2012-CE. It was noted that the exemption notifications did not distinguish between internal and external hard disk drives for concessional duty purposes. The Tribunal referred to previous notifications and technical opinions, which supported the view that both types of hard disk drives should be treated uniformly. The Tribunal also cited a previous decision in CCE vs TATA Consultancy Services Ltd, which held that items falling under CTH 847170 are entitled to concessional duty without bifurcation. The Tribunal concluded that the imported hard disk drives were eligible for the concessional rate of duty as claimed by the appellants.3. Validity of Demand of Duty with Interest and Penal Action:The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the demand of duty with interest and penal action by invoking the extended period was sustainable. It was noted that the exemption notifications did not make any distinction between internal and external hard disk drives, and the Revenue's contention that external hard disk drives lose their character as hard disk drives was unfounded. The Tribunal found that the demand of duty with interest and penal action was illegal, erroneous, and not sustainable. The Tribunal also referred to a recent judgment by the Principal Bench, which supported the appellants' case.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed all the appeals with consequential reliefs, holding that the imported external/portable hard disk drives were correctly classified under CTH 8471 70 20, eligible for the concessional rate of duty, and that the demand of duty with interest and penal action was not sustainable.
TaxTMI 