Lithium-ion batteries attract 18% IGST under Schedule III S. No. 376AA, not 12% under Schedule II S. No. 203

CESTAT Chennai upheld 18% IGST rate on lithium-ion batteries under S. No. 376AA of Schedule III to Notification No. 01/2017 IT (Rate), rejecting appellant's claim for 12% rate under S. No. 203 of Schedule II. The tribunal applied plain interpretation principle, finding no ambiguity in the specific notification covering lithium-ion batteries. However, interest demand was set aside as Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 lacked substantive provision for interest levy before August 16, 2024 amendment. Appeal partially allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

a) Whether the rate of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) payable on the import of lithium-ion batteries is 12% as per Sl. No. 203 of Schedule II to Notification No. 01/2017 - IT (Rate) or 18% as per Sl. No. 376AA of Schedule III to Notification No. 01/2017 - IT (Rate), as inserted by Notification No. 19/2018-IT (Rate) dated 26.7.2018.

b) Whether interest is leviable on the appellant for non-payment of IGST in the absence of machinery provisions in the Customs Tariff Act (CTA) to impose such interest.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

a) Rate of IGST on Lithium-Ion Batteries:

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework involves the interpretation of Schedule II and Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017 - IT (Rate) and the subsequent amendment by Notification No. 19/2018-IT (Rate). The appellant argued for a 12% IGST rate under Sl. No. 203, while the department insisted on an 18% rate under Sl. No. 376AA.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of classifying goods based on their description and condition at the time of import. It referenced the General Rules of Interpretation, particularly Rule 3(a), which prioritizes specific descriptions over general ones. The Tribunal found that the classification under Sl. No. 376AA, which specifically covers lithium-ion batteries, was appropriate.

- Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the appellant classified the goods under CTH 8507 6000, which was not disputed. It also highlighted that the appellant did not provide evidence to prove that the batteries were parts of cellular phones.

- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that a specific entry in a notification should prevail over a general one, leading to the conclusion that the 18% IGST rate under Sl. No. 376AA was applicable.

- Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's argument that the batteries were integral parts of mobile phones was not substantiated with evidence. The Tribunal also dismissed the appellant's reliance on various judgments, stating that the classification of goods involves specific facts and law not previously agitated before the Original Authority.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the 18% IGST rate on lithium-ion batteries as per Sl. No. 376AA.

b) Interest on Non-payment of IGST:

- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The appellant argued that Section 3(12) of the CTA did not borrow provisions for interest from the Customs Act, and thus interest could not be imposed. The Tribunal referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that interest cannot be levied in the absence of specific provisions.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the absence of a specific provision for interest in Section 3 of the CTA meant that interest could not be imposed. It also noted the recent amendment to the CTA, which now includes provisions for interest, but this was not applicable to the period in question.

- Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the legislative intent to impose interest was not evident in the relevant statutory provisions applicable during the period of dispute.

- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that interest can only be demanded if explicitly provided for by the legislature, which was not the case here.

- Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the department's argument for interest, citing the lack of statutory basis for such a demand during the relevant period.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the demand for interest on the IGST amount.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- The Tribunal held that the specific entry for lithium-ion batteries under Sl. No. 376AA of Schedule III to Notification No. 01/2017 - IT (Rate) should be applied, resulting in an 18% IGST rate. "In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place."

- The Tribunal confirmed that no interest could be levied in the absence of specific statutory provisions for such interest in the Customs Tariff Act during the relevant period.

- The final determinations were: the demand for IGST at 18% was upheld, while the demand for interest was set aside. The appellant was granted consequential relief as per law.

---