Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Socomec Innovative Power Solutions P ... vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva - V on 22 January, 2026
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
REGIONAL BENCH
CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 85427 OF 2024
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: 1092 to 1127(Gr. VA)/2023 (JNCH)/Appeals dated
31st October 2023 passed by the Commissioner Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II)
Socomec Innovative Power .....Appellant
Solutions P Ltd
2.404, 4th Floor, C-Wing,
Neelkanth Business Park,
Vidhyavihar West, Mumbai
versus
Commissioner of Customs (NS-V) .....Respondent
Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Nhava Sheva
Taluka-Uran, Dist: Raigad, Maharashtra-400 707
WITH
C/85428/2024 C/85429/2024 C/85430/2024 C/85431/2024
C/85432/2024 C/85433/2024 C/85434/2024 C/85435/2024
C/85436/2024 C/85437/2024 C/85438/2024 C/85439/2024
C/85440/2024 C/85441/2024 C/85442/2024 C/85443/2024
C/85444/2024 C/85445/2024 C/85446/2024 C/85447/2024
C/85448/2024 C/85449/2024 C/85450/2024 C/85451/2024
C/85452/2024 C/85453/2024 C/85454/2024 C/85455/2024
C/85456/2024 C/85457/2024 C/85458/2024 C/85459/2024
C/85460/2024 C/85461/2024 C/85462/2024
APPEARANCE:
Mt T Vishwanathan, Mr Akhilesh Kangazia and Ms Apoorva Parhiar, Advocates for
the appellant
Shri Deepak Sharma, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
DATE OF HEARING: 22.01.2026
DATE OF DECISION: 22.01.2026
FINAL ORDER NO's: 85041-85076/2026
JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA:
All the aforesaid 36 appeals filed by M/s Socomec Innovative Power
Solutions P Ltd 1 seek to assail the common order dated 31st October 2023
1. the appellant
2
C/85427 to 85462/2024
passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nhava Sheva,
Mumbai-II 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed all the 36
appeals after finding no infirmity in the respective assessment orders on
the 36 Bills of Entry that were filed by the appellant.
2. The issue that arises for consideration in these 36 appeals is
whether the appellant could have been denied exemption from payment of
basic customs duty on the Uninterrupted Power Supply 3 imported by the
appellant in terms of the Exemption Notification.
3. It transpires that in respect of another Bill of Entry, the appellant
had requested for a speaking order to be passed in respect of the UPS
that were imported and against that speaking order an appeal was filed
before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which appeal was
dismissed. However, Customs Appeal No. 85058 of 2024 was filed before
the Tribunal and this appeal was allowed by order dated 14th February
2025, which decision is reported in 2025 (2) TMI 1296 -CESTAT
MUMBAI.
4. It is seen that, after the speaking order was passed, the appellant
self-assessed the 36 Bills of Entry submitted subsequently for import of
UPS on higher rate of duty in view of the speaking order, which speaking
order, as noticed above, was set aside by the Tribunal in the decision
dated 14th February 2025.
5. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order recorded the
following finding to dismiss the appeals:
"7. After going through records of the case including
the grounds of appeals, additional submissions of the
Appellant and submissions made during the personal
hearing, I note that, the subject goods can be used in
2. the Commissioner (Appeals)
3. UPS
3
C/85427 to 85462/2024
multiple sectors viz data centers, healthcare,
infrastructure, telecommunication etc. On plain reading
of Notification No. 25/2005-Cus dated 01.03.2005, it is
observed that the exemption from Basic Custom
Duty has been extended only to static converters
which are meant for automatic data processing
machine and units thereof and telecommunication
apparatus other than static converters for cellular
mobile phones. The argument of the Appellant in
support of their contention regarding applicability
of the said Notification does not hold good as
'solely and principally' have not been used to
describe usage of static converter for applicability
of notification. The words and phrases used in the
notification are sufficient to suggest and clarify
that exemption from Basic Custom Duty is
applicable to only those static converters which
are meant for automatic data processing machine
and units thereof and telecommunication
apparatus other than static converters for cellular
mobile phones. The Appellant has wrongly interpreted
the notification by stating that UPS which were
imported by the Appellant vide the above mentioned 36
Bills of Entry are intended to be used in operation of
machines which either ultimately qualify as
Telecommunication apparatus or ADP machine or where
ADP machine is an integral part. This interpretation
which has been done by introduction of new words and
phrases in the/notification is against the settled law that
a notification has to be construed by the etymology
used in the notification. In this regard, I would like to
rely on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H.
Dave - (1996) 2 SCR 253, in which the bench held that
such a notification has to be interpreted in the light of
the words employed by it and not on any other basis.
This was so held in the context of the principle that in a
taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment,
that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the
words and that the matter should be governed wholly
by the language of the notification, i.e., by the plain
terms of the exemption." I do not see any
ambiguity/confusion arising out of the language
4
C/85427 to 85462/2024
used in the notification allowing exemption from
Basic Customs Duty to static converters for
automatic data processing machine and units
thereof, and telecommunication apparatus other
than static converters for cellular mobile phones.
Addition of words such as 'inbuilt', 'built-in' etc. to
interpret a notification is neither warranted nor
permitted considering several judicial pronouncements.
*****
9. From the above discussions, it can be inferred that static converters which are meant only for automatic data processing machine and units thereof, and telecommunication apparatus other than static converters for cellular mobile phones are eligible for exemption from Basic Customs Duty under serial number 4 of the Notification No 25/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005. Such exemption is not available to static converters meant for machines of healthcare, infrastructure sector etc., machines which can indirectly be considered as ADP machine etc."
(emphasis supplied)
6. Shri Akhilesh Kangazia, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has, in the case of the appellant, held that the appellant was entitled to seek exemption from payment of basic customs duty under serial No. 4 of Notification No. 25/2005-Cus dated 1st March 2005 4, and so the present appeals would have to be allowed.
7. Shri Deepak Sharma, Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the department supported the impugned order.
8. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the department have been considered.
4. the Exemption Notification 5 C/85427 to 85462/2024
9. Serial No. 4 of the Exemption Notification on which reliance has been placed reads as follows:
Sr. Heading, Description of goods
No. Sub -
heading or
Tariff item
4. 8504 40 Static converters for automatic data processing
machines and units thereof, and
telecommunication apparatus, other than static converters for cellular mobile phones
10. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals holding that the static converter which the appellant had imported meant for automatic data processing machines and units thereof and telecommunication apparatus other than static converters for cellular mobile phones are not eligible for exemption under Exemption Notification.
11. This issue was examined by a Division Bench of the Tribunal in the own case of the appellant 5 which arose from the passing of the speaking order. The Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to seek exemption from payment of basic customs duty on the goods under the Exemption Notification. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as follows:
"11. In view of the foregoing discussions and analysis, and on the basis of the orders of the Tribunal and the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above, we are of the considered view that the impugned goods viz. 'Uninterruptible or Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) system classifiable under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8504 4090, is eligible for full exemption from BCD vide Serial No. 4 of Notification No. 25/2005-Customs dated 01.03.2005. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 to the extent it had upheld the order of the original authority in denying the aforesaid customs duty exemption, confiscation of the imported goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalties on the appellants, does not stand the scrutiny of law and therefore is not legally sustainable."
5. 2025 (2) TMI 1296 -CESTAT MUMBAI 6 C/85427 to 85462/2024
12. It also needs to be noted that another Division Bench of the Tribunal in Prostarm Info Systems Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-V, JNCH 6 also held that the benefit of Exemption Notification is available to imported UPS. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced below:
"2. Denial of the benefit of Notification No.25/2005- Cus. dated 01.03.2005 in respect of "Uninterrupted Power Supply" (UPS) is the subject matter of present dispute. The authorities below have denied the benefit of such notification on the basis of the CTH 8504 40, holding that the product in question shall not be eligible for the benefit of exemption on the ground that the usage of the said goods are not specific to any particular Automatic Data Processing (ADP) machine. On perusal of the case records, more specifically the adjudication order dated 30.04.2024, we find that the original authority had referred to the Co-ordinate Bench decision rendered in the case of Cyber Power System India Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2024 (2) TMI 875- CESTAT-KOLKATA relied upon by the appellants. However, he had not recorded any findings on such decided case on the ground that the outcome of the decision passed by the Coordinate Bench is not known to the department. It is evident from such observation made by the original authority and upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the issue arising out of the present dispute has already been dealt with in favour of the importer in the case of Cyber Power System India(supra). Thus, we are of the opinion that different interpretation cannot be placed to decide the present appeals differently."
13. This decision of the Tribunal in Prostarm Info Systems Ltd was accepted by the department, as is clear from the letter dated 8th May 2025 sent by Superintendent of Customs, CRAC (I), JNCH. The relevant portion of the said communication is reproduced below:
6. 2025 (6) TMI 1020 -CESTAT MUMBAI 7 C/85427 to 85462/2024 "In this regard, it is informed that the above mentioned CESTAT Final Order No. 85259-85260/2025-CU[DB] dated 22.01.2025 in case of M/s Prostarm Info System Ltd., has been accepted by the competent authority on 29.04.2025."
14. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in the matter of the appellant and in the matter of Prostarm Info Systems Ltd, which decision has been accepted by the department, the impugned order dated 31st October 2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nhava Sheva in respect of the subsequent 36 Bills of Entry would have to set aside and is set aside. All the 36 appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA) PRESIDENT (C J MATHEW) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) */as