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>Appellate tribunal affirms classification of imported goods as video cameras, denial of exemption. Burden of proof on claimant.</h1> <h3>M/s. SRP Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise</h3> M/s. SRP Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise - 2019 (365) E.L.T. 840 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Classification of imported goods under CTH 85258030 and eligibility for exemption under notification No. 25/2005-Cus.Classification under CTH 85258030:The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding the classification of imported goods, 'TCL Still Image Digital Video Cameras-DV522,' under CTH 85258030 and the eligibility for exemption under notification No. 25/2005-Cus. The appellant claimed that the imported goods should be classified as cameras and not video cameras. However, the Revenue argued that the product was a video camera based on its features and operating procedure. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) determined that the product fell under CTH 85258030 as a video camera, thus not eligible for the exemption.Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus:The main issue in the appeal was whether the imported item, 'TCL Still Image Digital Video Cameras-DV522,' was eligible for the benefit of exemption under notification No. 25/2005-Cus. The Revenue contended that the imported item was a video camera, while the appellant claimed it was primarily meant for recording still images. The appellant failed to produce relevant product literature or user manual to support their claim. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the product description, usage information from the internet, and a circular from the board to conclude that the imported product was a video camera and not eligible for the exemption. The appellant's failure to provide evidence supporting their claim led to the dismissal of the appeal. The burden of proof for claiming exemption lies with the party seeking it, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous judgments.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification of the imported goods under CTH 85258030 as video cameras and the denial of exemption under notification No. 25/2005-Cus. The appellant's inability to substantiate their claim that the product was primarily for still image recording, coupled with the lack of evidence, resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. The principles of burden of proof in claiming exemptions were reiterated, emphasizing the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims in customs matters.
TaxTMI 