2018 (9) TMI 1602

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ise Notification No. 6/2006 and 20/2006. The Department took the view that the impugned goods are not eligible for benefit of the said notifications and the proceedings initiated against the appellant culminated in an adjudication order dated 14.3.2006 wherein benefit of the said notifications were denied, differential duties of Rs. 88,759/- and Rs. 4,50,314/- in respect of two bills of entry were demanded along with interest thereon and the imported goods were ordered to be assessed on merit rate of duty. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 12.1.2010 upheld the order of the original authority and rejected the appeal. Hence, the appellants are now before this forum. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmunications Ltd. Vs. CC - 2005 (183) ELT 92 (Tri. Del.) 3. On the other hand, ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supports the impugned order. He draws our attention to decision of Twenty First Century Builders Vs. CC, New Delhi - 2004 (172) ELT 459 (Tri. Del.) wherein it has been held that parts /components of cell phone battery are not parts, components or accessories of mobile handsets and hence the benefit of Notification No. 21/2005 were not eligible to the appellants. The ld. AR points out that the said decision as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2005 (183) ELT A118 (SC). 3.1 The ld. AR also places reliance on the ratio of Tribunal's decision in ACD Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai - 2011 (263) ELT 744 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsultant for appellant. The Tribunal therein has unequivocally held that chargers, battery and antenna are accessories for mobile handsets and thus eligible for notification No.21/2002-Cus. The dispute then revolves on whether the part of such mobile charger would also qualify for the benefit of the impugned notifications. Ld. consultant has also relied upon a number of decisions which have held in support of the appellant, for example, the Tribunal's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta Vs. Bansal Industrial Corporation - 2000 (118) ELT 119, wherein it has been held that the cycle tyre bead ring is part of a tyre which is essential part of cycle and cycle rickshaw, hence bead rings would also be considered as an essential p....