TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 rules on classification of Fixed Wireless Terminals as not cellular phones</h1> The Tribunal determined that the Fixed Wireless Terminal LST-250 and LSP-340 imported by M/s. Tata Teleservices Ltd. do not qualify as cellular telephones ... Wireless terminal Issues: Classification of Fixed Wireless Terminal LSP-340 and LST-250 under Customs Tariff Act and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.In these appeals by M/s. Tata Teleservices Ltd., the main issue is the classification of Fixed Wireless Terminal LSP-340 and LST-250 under sub-heading 8525.2017 of the Customs Tariff Act and the availability of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 (Sl. No. 313). The Appellants argue that the imported goods should be classified as cellular telephones based on CDMA technology and should benefit from the exemption, contrary to the Deputy Commissioner's classification under a different sub-heading and denial of the exemption based on a Circular. The Department of Telecommunications' opinion supporting the inclusion of the goods under the exemption is also highlighted.The Appellants further contend that the impugned goods, although larger in size, operate on cellular technology and should be considered cellular phones. They argue against the Revenue's interpretation that cellular phones must be mobile, citing technical definitions and industry standards. The Appellants challenge the Circular's restrictions and rely on legal precedents to support their position that the exemption should not be altered beyond the notification's terms. They also assert that the FWT Model LST-250 should be classified under sub-heading 8525.20.17 of the Tariff due to its cellular technology.The Revenue argues that the impugned goods do not meet the criteria for cellular phones as they are Fixed Wireless Terminals, not mobile phones. They emphasize the distinction between cellular phones and fixed wireless telephones based on mobility and technical definitions. The Revenue supports the Circular's clarification and asserts that the benefit of the exemption is limited to cellular phones, not fixed wireless terminals. They specifically address the classification of FWT Model LST-250 as a Fixed Wireless Telephone, not a Fixed Wireless Terminal.The Tribunal analyzes the submissions and determines that the FWT Model LST-250 cannot be classified as a cellular telephone under sub-heading 8525.20.17 due to its lack of telephone functionality without external connection. Regarding the CDMA FWT Model LSP-340, the Tribunal deliberates on whether it qualifies as a cellular telephone. They conclude that the impugned product, labeled as a Fixed Wireless Terminal by the manufacturer, does not meet the criteria of a cellular telephone under the Tariff. The Tribunal agrees with the Revenue's interpretation that cellular phones must be mobile, supported by technical literature and definitions. They find that the impugned goods are appropriately classified under a different sub-heading of the Customs Tariff.The Tribunal acknowledges the availability of the benefit of Serial No. 427 for both models as Fixed Wireless Terminals, despite the reference to a different heading in the notification. They cite a Supreme Court decision and a government Circular to support their interpretation that the exemption should apply based on the goods' description, even if not explicitly listed under the mentioned headings. The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
