TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Ajay Jain, Special Counsel. ORDER JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA: All these four appeals have been placed for hearing in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 07.11.2024. The order is reproduced below: "1. Hon'ble Mr. Justice J B Pardiwala pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Dr Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India, His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra. 2. In terms of the reportable judgment, the review petitions are disposed of. The Registry shall take steps to list the connected appeals and petitions before the appropriate Bench and they shall be disposed in terms of the observations made in terms of the judgment. 3. After the pronouncement of the j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds that all these four appeals were earlier dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 19.12.2017. It was held that the 'digital still image video cameras' imported by the appellant would not be entitled to basic customs duty exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by the notification dated 17.03.2012. 3. It is against the said order of the Tribunal that four Civil Appeals were filed by the department before the Supreme Court. These four Civil Appeals have been disposed of by the Supreme Court by the aforesaid order dated 07.11.2024 and the appeals have been remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits only with regard to the normal period of limitation contemplated under section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notification dated 17.03.2012, whereby an 'Explanation' was added; (ii) Whether the Tribunal, in the decision rendered on 19.12.2017, has correctly interpreted the scope of 'Explanation'." 6. A Larger Bench of the Tribunal, by an interim order dated 14.06.2024, answered the reference in the following manner: "(i) The "digital still image video cameras" would be entitled to BCD exemption under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 as amended by Notification No. 15/2012 dated 17.03.2012. (ii) The interpretation of the Explanation by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in Sony India Pvt.'s case denying the benefit of exemption is a result of incorrect interpretation of the Explanatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, therefore, be appropriate to refer the matter to the President of the Tribunal for constituting a larger bench of the Tribunal for deciding the following issues: "(i) Whether the 'digital still image video cameras' imported by the appellant would be entitled to BCD exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by the notification dated 17.03.2012, whereby an 'Explanation' was added; (ii) Whether the Tribunal, in the decision rendered on 19.12.2017, has correctly interpreted the scope of 'Explanation'." (emphasis supplied) 3. The matter has since been decided by the larger bench of the Tribunal by an order dated 14.06.2024. The larger bench held as follows: "34. The ratio laid down in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recording time is less than 30 minutes in a single sequence using the maximum storage (including expanded) capacity, then the cameras would be eligible to the benefit of the said Notification. Also, the Revenue has never claimed that there is ambiguity in the said Notification. On the contrary, the Learned Special Counsel in the written submission mentioned that there is no ambiguity in the wordings of the Notification and it should be literally interpreted within the legal frame work. The appellant in the present case also fairly established that their case falls within the four corners of the said Notification by adducing evidence discussed above. 35. In view of above, it can fairly be inferred that the appellants are eligible to....