Dunlop India Ltd. & Madras Rubber ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 October, 1975
"Mobile Phone One term for a Cellular phone. There are four main types of Cellular phones - mobile (also called car phone), transportable, portable and personal." He mentioned that the Model LSP 340 is only larger in size than the cellular phone working under CDMA technology and it does not require any line connection for being installed; that wherever land land line connections could not be offered by the Appellants and the Customer inserts on having telephone facility, the cellular phone technology has been offered as a land line by the Appellants. He also referred to the letters dated 12.3.2001, 16.3.2003 and 29.5.2003 of the Department of telecommunications wherein it is specifically mentioned that FWT Model LSF 340 "has the property of both trans receiver and features of a telephone and the item is capable of operating on cellular technology and, therefore, the same could be covered under Sl. No. 313 of Customs Notification No. 21/2002." The learned senior Counsel mentioned that the opinion tendered by Department of Telecommunications which is the model Department of Government of India in relation to telephone can not be brushed aside without assigning technical reasons. He also contended that the Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs can not alter the Tariff and Notification; that if the Revenue wants to restrict the benefit of exemption notification only to Mobile phone, it should have been specifically mentioned in the Notification; that both the Tariff Heading and Sl. No. 313 of the Notification refers to "Cellular Phones" and not to Cellular Phones which are handsets or mobile". He relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. vs. Union of India, 1981 ELT 804 (DEL) wherein it has been held that "the exemption granted by notification can not be altered by putting additional conditions by Press notes, or trade notices."