M/S Impel Electronics vs Cc, New Delhi

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/I&G/387/08 dated 10.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi]

For Approval & Signature :

Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

M/s Impel Electronics Appellant

Vs.

CC, New Delhi Respondent

Appearance:

None - for the Appellant

Shri B.B. Sharma, D.R. - for the Respondent

Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

F. Order No. 50219/2015

Per R.K. Singh :

The appellants filed this appeal against order in appeal dated 10.10.2008 which upheld the order-in-original dated 24.9.2008.

2. The issue briefly stated, is as under :

The appellants imported goods falling under chapter 85 and declared them as Model KD-G 396UD Brand JVC MP3/CD receiver in the relevant Bill of Entry and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus as amended (Sl No. 539) and Notification No. 6/2006-CEX as amended (Sl No. 21). Both the notifications prescribe concessional rate of duty for the goods falling under CTH 85 namely, MP3 or MP4 or MPEG4 player with or without radio or video reception facility. The concerned Assessing Officer, after consulting the relevant catalogue, as per which the goods are described as CD receiver with front USB and AUX/CD receiver with front AUX, denied the benefit of the said notifications on the ground that the goods imported were CD player having an additional feature for playing MP-3 format. The appellants have contended that the goods are essentially MP-3 players and that they should be allowed the benefit of the said exemption notifications.

3. No one appeared for hearing, when the case was posted nor any request for adjournment was received. Consequently in the wake of the order of pre-deposit in the case of Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs. CCE - 2014 (310) ELT 209 (SC), to the effect that CESTAT should not dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution and ought to decide appeal on merit even if appellant or its Counsel is not present, the appeal is being decided on merit.

4. As is evident from the foregoing, the issue involved is whether the impugned goods are CD receivers or MP-3 players. The Commissioner (Appeals) has categorically stated that as per the catalogue goods have been described as CD receiver with front USB and AUX/CD received with front AUX. The write up in the catalogue also stated that you can also play/enjoy MP-3. Thus, it is evident that the goods cannot be called MP-3 players. As the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-CUS as amended and Notification No. 6/2006-CEX as amended is available to MP-3 and MP-4 MEPG 4 players with or without radio or video reception facility, it is evident that the impugned goods are not eligible for the benefit of the said notifications. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. The appeal is therefore rejected.

Justice G. Raghuram)

(President)

(R.K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

RM

1