Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai vs M/S. Fortune Marketing Pvt. Ltd on 24 August, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
C/41608/2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No. 466/2014 dated 17.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai)
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
(Airport & Cargo) Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Fortune Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Appellant Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision: 24.08.2017 Final Order No. 41862 / 2017 Per Bench The respondents imported External Hard Disc Drives vide various Bills of Entry claiming the benefit of Sl. No. 225 of Notification 12/2012-CE dated 1.3.2012 classifying the goods under CTH 84717020. The department was of the view that removable or exchangeable disc drives do not fall under the classification of 84717020 and these goods are classifiable under CTH 84717030 and therefore is not eligible for the benefit of the notification. The respondent paid the differential duty under protest. After adjudication, the original authority passed the order confirming the classification of the goods under CTH 84717030 and denying the benefit of the Notification. Aggrieved, the respondents filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the order passed by the original authority. Hence department has filed this present appeal.
2. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan reiterated the grounds of appeal.
3. On behalf of the respondent, ld. Counsel Shri Hari Radhakrishnan submitted that in the respondents own case the issue has been decided by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in favour of the respondent by classifying the goods under CTH 84717020 and the benefit of the notification was extended to the respondents. Further, in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Supertron Electronics Pvt. Ltd.- 2017-TIOL-125-CESTAT, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has also taken a similar view.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The issue whether the imported goods are classifiable under CTH 84717020 has been analyzed and discussed in the decisions above referred. Following the same, we hold that the impugned order calls for no interference and the appeal filed by the department is dismissed.
(Operative portion of the order was
pronounced in open court)
(Madhu Mohan Damodhar) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Rex
3