Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), Acc, ... on 29 July, 2016

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT  NO.
Appeal No.C/86445/16

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-AMP-APP-97-16-17 dt. 13.06.2016  passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai Zone-III )

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical)

=======================================================

1.	Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see	   :        No
	the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
	CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2.	Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the     :     No
	CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication 
      in any authoritative report or not?

3.	Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy       :    Seen 
	of the Order?

4.	Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental  :    Yes
	authorities?

======================================================= M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd.

:

Appellant VS Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai :

Respondent Appearance Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for Appellant Shri Kamal Puggal, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for respondent CORAM:

Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical)

  		       Date of hearing	  :   29/07/2016
                        	             Date of decision  :    29/07/2016

ORDER NO.


Per :   Ramesh Nair

The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellants imported goods namely Micro SDHC Memory Storage Cards and USB Memory Storage are classifiable under CTH 85235100 is eligible for nil rate of basic customs duty under Sr. No. 15 of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus dt. 1.3.2005 as amended vide Notification No. 132/2006 dt. 29.12.2006 or otherwise.

2. At the outset, Shri Anil Balani, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the dispute involved in the present case has been resolved as per recent CBEC Boards clarification vide letter F. No. 528/43/2016-STO (TU) dt. 20.7.2016, wherein it was clarified that the benefit of the Notification No. 24/2005-CUS as amended is extendable to Micro/Mini SD Cards. He submits that as per the clarification the benefit of notification is clearly available to the appellant.

3. Shri Kamal Puggal, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that both the lower authorities have not considered the referred Boards letter dt. 20.7.2016. Therefore he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the matter, in the light of the said Boards clarification.

4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We agree with the Ld. AR that while passing the order by both the authorities below, the Boards clarification was not existing. Therefore now, since the Board has clarified vide letter dt. 20.7.2016, the matter needs to be remanded. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order after taking into consideration the Boards letter F. No. 528/43/2016-STO (TU) dt. 20.7.2016. Needless to say that appellant shall be given sufficient opportunity of personal hearing before de novo adjudication which should be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order. Appeal is allowed by way remand to the adjudicating authority.

(Pronounced in court) (Raju) Member (Technical) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) SM.

C/86445/16