TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and H. 2. The word 'impugn' means 'challenge' or 'assail' and 'impugned order' is an order challenged in an appeal, petition, etc. Needless to say, anyone aggrieved by a judicial or quasi-judicial order can only challenge it in the next higher judicial forum and not before the same authority which passed the order. An order of Assistant Commissioner, for instance, is impugned in an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is impugned before this Tribunal and the orders of this Tribunal can be impugned in the appeals before High Courts or Supreme Court. Therefore, the final order of this tribunal cannot be impugned before the tribunal itself. 3. Ignoring the above semantic error in the applications, we proceed to decide them and examine the alleged mistakes in this Tribunal's Final Order. 4. The alleged mistakes in the Final Order are as follows: A. In para 9(vii) of the Final Order the order of CESTAT Mumbai in Reliance Retail Ltd. [2025-TIO-998-CESTAT] in which the disputed goods ONU/ONT were held to be classifiable under Customs Tariff Item [CTI] 8517 69 50 as subscriber end equipment relied upon by the appellant. However, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd therefore, to be classified under six digit CTSH 851762". The department did not produce any evidence in support of this. This is an error apparent on record. H. In paras 51 (iii) and 41(iv) of the Final Order, the matter has been remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine/cross-examine the technical expert to decide whether ONU/ONT are optical transport network products and whether OLTs are Optical Transport Equipment or not. Since the department never sought to examine or cross examine the technical expert, this option was erroneously granted to the department. This error needs to be corrected. I. In paragraph 12(i), while framing the issue, it has been wrongly recorded that the appellant's case was that the disputed goods were classifiable under CTI 8517 69 50; the appellant's case is that they were classifiable under CTI 8517 69 90. This needs to be corrected. J. The adjudication order had held that the imported goods were liable to confiscation under section 111(m) of the Act. The appellant had challenged this finding in its appeal but the final order does not discuss this aspect at all. This also needs to be corrected. 5. Learned counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T. Even in this application for rectification of mistake, the appellant clearly admits that they receive and transmit data. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that they do much more than receive and transmit data. We find that CTSH 8517 62 does not exclude machines which receive and transmit data if they also do something else. CTSH 8517 62 does not read 'machines which receive and transmit data but nothing else' it says 'Machines for reception, conversion, transmission or re-generation of voice images, or other data including switching and routing apparatus'. The function of the ONT/ONU is not in dispute. They are installed at the premises of the subscribers of the broadband, receive broadband internet connection from the internet service provider (ISP) and split into multiple points to which various devices in the house can be connected or provide internet through wifi. Nothing in the submissions made by either side in the appeal, during the hearing or even in this application would demonstrate that ONT/ONU do not receive or transmit data. This submission of the learned counsel in Grounds E & G of this application that there was an error in the Final Order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the sub-classification designated by '- -' or '- - -', as the case may be. Insofar as sub-heading 8517 62 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is concerned, and which is also a sub-classification, with corresponding description for both as 'machines for reception, conversion and transmission or re generation of voice or images or other data' but within others too are several enumerations of the same description. Consequently, this 'others' encompasses not only 'switches' and 'routers' but the others too, in the absence of specific enumeration within sub-heading 85617 62 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The adjudicating authority was correct in not restricting the classification to sub-heading 8517 62 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in the context of deployment of '- - -'. Likewise, the presence of 'subscriber end equipment' as well as 'IP set top boxes' within the lines below the sub-classification would erase the primary heading otherwise will be of within sub-heading 8517 62 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 owing to the ordinal hierarchy espoused by the General Rules for Interpretation appended to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 11. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- PLCC equipment 8517 62 20 --- Voice frequency telegraphy 8517 62 30 --- Modems (modulators-demodulators) 8517 62 40 --- High bit rate digital subscriber line system (HDSL) 8517 62 50 --- Digital loop carrier system (DLC) 8517 62 60 --- Synchronous digital hierarchy system (SDH) 8517 62 70 ---Multiplexers, statistical multiplexers 8517 62 90 --- Other 8517 69 -- Other 8517 69 20 --ISDN System 8517 69 20 -- ISDN terminal adaptor 8517 69 40 --- X 25 Pads 8517 69 50 --- Subscriber end equipment 8517 69 60 --- Set top boxes for gaining access to internet 8517 69 70 --- Attachments for telephones 8517 69 90 ---Other 15. In the Customs Tariff, in addition to four, six and eight-digit classifications, there are also single, and double and triple dashes which precede the entries. In some cases, these dashes are along with the six or eight-digit classifications and in other cases they are alone. General Explanatory Notes under the general rules for interpretation explain the significance of these dashes and how they should be read in the following words: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods of ONT/ONU. These are optical network terminals/ units. These are installed at the premises of the subscriber of the broadband service. They receive broadband internet connection through an optical fiber from the ISP, split it into multiple points to which various devices in the house can be connected to enjoy the broadband. They also provide this internet connection through wifi. 20. These are passive devices and do not need a power supply. Learned counsel submitted that these are like a combination of the erstwhile modems and routers. These functions of ONT/ONU are not in dispute. They receive internet connectivity in broadband form through the optical fiber and transmit it to various devices of the subscriber either through cables or through wifi. The case of the appellant is that under CTI 8517 69 50 there is a specific heading of "subscriber end equipment" preceded by triple dash and since these are undisputedly meant to be installed in the subscriber's premises, ONT/ONU deserve to be classified as subscriber end equipment under CTI 8517 69 50. This argument appears to be fair at the first glance. However, a closer look would reveal that CTI 8517 69 50 is sub-set....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e classified by their place of study and gender as follows: A. Delhi B. Mumbai C. Chennai D. Rest of India (i) Boys (ii) Girls (iii) Transgender 24. The first level of classification is based on the place of the study- Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Rest of India. Students of rest of India are further divided by their gender. A transgender student in say, Allahabad, would fall under D(iii) but a transgender student of Delhi cannot fall under this category because the student will fall under A (studying in Delhi) and not under D (as he is not studying in the rest of India). 25. All "subscriber end equipment" cannot clearly, be classified under CTI 8517 69 50. Even if we consider the goods falling under CTH 8517 themselves, telephone sets, smart phones etc., are all installed at the subscriber's premises and are therefore "subscriber end equipment". However since they do not fall under the CTSH 8517 69 they cannot be classified under CTI 8517 69 50. Once it is accepted that the ONTs/ONU are meant for reception and transmission of data, the irresistible conclusion is that they fall under CTI 8517 62 and, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al order was passed accordingly. Now, in this application, the appellant cannot say that the expert report submitted by it in defence should be accepted by the Commissioner without examining the expert. The report was purportedly given by Shri Ravinder Kumar Mishra, retired Deputy Director General of the Department of Telecommunication. We do not see why such a senior retired telecom expert should not be able to explain and defend his purported report and how the appellant can insist that the report given by Shri Mishra should be accepted but the Commissioner should not examine him at all. If the report was indeed given by him, the expert should have no difficulty in explaining his report to the Commissioner at all in the remand proceedings. The contention that the department should have made such a request for examination holds no water because it is not the department but the appellant which insists that the report should be considered. The appellant's contention in these applications is that the expert report produced by it should be accepted but without examining or cross-examining the expert. This ground in the application deserves to be rejected because this is not a mistake ....