The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) ruled that Fujifilm India Pvt. Ltd. was eligible for exemption from Basic Customs Duty ( BCD ) on imported “Digital Still Image Video Cameras” under Notification No. 25/2005, as amended.
Fujifilm India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, is a company engaged in the import of cameras, operating from Gurgaon, Haryana. The appellant imported cameras under 15 Bills of Entry and sought exemption from BCD as per the said notification.
The Deputy Commissioner of Customs denied the exemption in Order-in-Original No. 341/2012, dated June 29, 2012. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the denial in Order-in-Appeal No. 808/2014, dated May 6, 2014. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the CESTAT.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
The appellant argued that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal had already settled the issue in favor of importers in Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports), New Delhi. The Larger Bench, in Interim Order No. 69/2024 dated June 14, 2024, ruled that ambiguity in exemption notifications should be resolved in favor of the importer, provided the claimant showed compliance with the notification’s criteria.
The revenue countered by relying on the Delhi Bench’s earlier ruling in Sony India and Others (2018-TIOL-763-CESTAT-DEL) which denied similar exemptions. The department argued that the amended notification dated March 17, 2012, clearly excluded such cameras from exemption eligibility.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
The two-member bench comprising P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) reviewed the submissions and the precedent set by the Nikon India case. The bench found no ambiguity in the language of Notification No. 25/2005 (as amended) and observed that the appellant successfully proven compliance with the notification’s parameters.
The tribunal explained that the appellant’s imported cameras met the technical and functional criteria for the BCD exemption and the denial by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unjustified. The tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The tribunal clarified that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the BCD exemption and directed the revenue to grant consequential benefits as per the law. The appeal was allowed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
