Concessional duty exemption for removable hard disk drives upheld where classification had already been settled in prior proceedings.

Imported external or removable hard disc drives were treated as eligible for concessional duty under Serial No. 255 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE because the tariff classification and exemption claim had already been settled in prior proceedings involving the same product. The Tribunal noted that earlier appellate rulings, together with the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Department's challenge on merits in the related matter, reinforced that the exemption issue stood concluded against the Revenue's contention. On that basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) was found correct in allowing the notification benefit and the Revenue's challenge was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported external or removable hard disc drives were eligible for concessional duty benefit under Serial No. 255 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 01.03.2012.

Analysis: The imported goods were found to fall within the relevant tariff classification accepted in earlier decisions, and the Tribunal treated the issue as already settled in favour of exemption on the basis of prior appellate rulings concerning the same product. The later dismissal of the Department's challenge before the Supreme Court in the related matter on merits, with reference to the Office Memorandum dated 05.06.2013, reinforced the view that the exemption question stood concluded against the Revenue's contention. The Commissioner (Appeals) had therefore correctly allowed the benefit of the notification.

Conclusion: The goods were held eligible for exemption under Serial No. 255 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 01.03.2012, and the Department's appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order granting concessional duty benefit was sustained and the Revenue's challenge was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tariff classification and exemption claim for a product have been conclusively settled in prior binding proceedings, the same exemption cannot be denied by re-agitating the identical issue on materially the same facts.

---