TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsmission or reception of voice, images or other data, including apparatus for communication in a wired or wireless network (such as a local or wide area network)..... - telephone sets, including smartphones and other telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks:' corresponding to heading 8517 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and were, in bills of entry no. 8506132/17.10.2018, no. 5818070/25.11.2019 and no. 7597837/05.05.2020 filed by M/s Reliance Sibur Elastomers Pvt Ltd. M/s Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd and M/s Reliance Digital Platform & Project Services Ltd respectively, claimed to be most aptly described as 'other than' 'line telephone sets with cordless handsets' which, being description of subheading 8517 11 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, renders tariff item 8517 1810 in First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 to cover 'push button type' below 'telephone sets, including smartphones and other telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks:' corresponding to subheading 8517 18 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. The claim did not resonate well with the 'proper officer' for assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding to the revised tariff item. It was further submitted that the first appellate authority was remiss in having upheld the logic of that conclusion. It was pointed out that the impugned goods being, undeniably, used only for telephony, and specifically tailored as 'voice over internet protocol (VoIP)' device, could not be equated, and notwithstanding usage of similar platforms, with 'video conferencing equipment' which is an entirely different device. It was contended that the Tribunal, in Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd v. Dy Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2023 (383) ELT 204 (Tri.Del.)], had had occasion to look into such 'phones' adapted for 'voice over internet protocol (VoIP) and, though with 'touch screen' feature, was held as not being video conferencing equipment in the absence of a video camera. It was pointed out that this decision of the Tribunal was followed subsequently in Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai [2024 (4) TMI 42 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. 4. We have heard Learned Authorized Representative who took us through the findings of the original and first appellate authorities. 5. On perusal of the records, we find that the impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....distinguished by '-' without corresponding code, implying that the placement of preceding sub-classification at '-' cannot be ignored. Consequently, with 'telephone sets' clearly segregated as a sub-classification of the heading, all and any type of 'phone' finds fitment only against tariff item within the sub-headings below the sub-classification. On both these counts, the tariff item proposed by the 'proper officer' fails the test of the General Rules for Interpretation of the Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and has to be discarded. 7. The decision of the Tribunal in re Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd holding that '5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) also did not accept the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and rejected the appeal. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below: "5.2 ** ** ** The IP Phone works on voice over Internet protocol. The product catalogue also indicates that the product has various network features like power over Ethernet, network access control etc. an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ks or for other wireless networks. The description of goods under the Sub-Heading 8517 11 (first double dash) are line telephone sets with cordless sets, while under Sub-Heading 8517 12 (second double dash) are telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks. 23. The appellant imported, as noticed above, an Executive Level IP Phone of model FON 670i. It is, therefore, an IP Phone. The description of the goods under consideration will not fall in either of the two Sub-Headings 8517 11 or 8517 12. Being an IP telephone it would fall under Sub-Heading 8517 18 (third double dash) under which the description of the goods is 'others'. It is a push button type telephone and, therefore, would fall under Tariff Item No. 8517 18 10. 24. Rule 1 of the General Rules also provides that the titles of Section, Chapters and Sub-Chapters are provided for ease of reference. In CCE v. Simplex Mills Co. Ltd.2005 taxmann.com 777/2005 (181) ELT 345, the Supreme Court held that rule I gives primacy to the Section and Chapter Notes along with the terms of the Headings and so this rule should be applied first. It is only when a clear picture is not emerging that the subsequent r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s imported by them should have been done by following the classification as per the exemption notification and not by application of Chapter Note 3 to the Chapter 12. (ii) Since no rate of duty has been mentioned under column 5 of the Notification No. 21/2002- Cus., assessment should have been made allowing them full exemption from Additional Duty. 5.4 We are not in position to agree with the said submissions- As per Rule 1 of "Genera Rules of Interpretation of Import Tariff" "1. The Sections, Chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes and, provided such headings or Notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions:" Thus by application of the said rule classification of the goods is to be done in accordance with the terms of headings and any relative Section or Chapter Note. It is not the case of the appellant that by application of the above Rule 1, the classification as done by the Revenue is erroneous but appellants are contending that the classification should have followed the exemption....