TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs holding 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 has been upheld. 2. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has placed reliance upon a decision dated 09.12.2017 of a Division Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi- 2017 (12) TMI 1112 - CESTAT New Delhi . 3. During the course of hearing of Customs Appeal No. 52218 of 2019 (M/s. Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Customs House, New Delhi), a Division Bench of the Tribunal doubte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) [the Commissioner (Appeals)] by which the appeal that was filed by it to assail the order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Group-VA [the Assistant Commissioner] has been dismissed. The Assistant Commissioner had held that NIKON brand "digital still image video cameras" imported by the appellant are not entitled to Basic Customs Duty [BCD] exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by the notification dated 17.03.2012. 2. When the matter was heard by this bench, a detailed order dated 08.03.2024 was passed. Paragraphs 64 to 65 of the order are reproduced below: "64. The view that we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Collector23 case. To apply the said ratio to the facts of a case, presence of ambiguity in the subject for interpretation is a sine qua non. If there is no ambiguity in the interpretation of the exemption Notification, the same should be liberally interpreted adopting the tools of interpretation applicable to a Notification granting exemption from payment of duty. Also, it is essential that the burden lies on the claimant of the Exemption to establish that this case falls within the parameters of the exemption Notification. In the present case, there is no ambiguity in reading the Explanation of the Notification No.25/2003-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 as amended, in as much as, a literal interpretation of the said Explanation, as discussed above,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief." (emphasis supplied) 6. It also transpires that against the aforesaid order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the Tribunal, four Civil Appeals were filed by the department before the Supreme Court. These four Civil Appeals were disposed of by the Supreme Court by an order dated 07.11.2024. The appeals were 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, 1962 [the Customs Act]. It needs to be noted that the Supreme Court had earlier, in the judgment pronounced on 09.03.2021, held in these four Civil Appeals that the extended period of limitation under section 28(4) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be entitled to basic customs duty exemption under Notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by Notification No. 15/2012 dated 17.03.2012, is the issue that was involved in Customs Appeal No. 52218 of 2019 and is also the issue involved in the present four Customs Appeals. 10. Such being the position, the order dated 09.09.2024 passed in Customs Appeal No. 52218 of 2019, following the answer to the reference by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal on 14.06.2024, would govern the issue involved in all the four Customs Appeals. The digital still image video cameras involved in the present Customs Appeals would, therefore, be entitled to exemption from basic customs duty in terms of the Notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended on 17.03.20....