Advertisements

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled in favor of M/s Secure Meters Ltd., affirming that their imported communication modules should be classified under CTI 8517 70 90. The Tribunal set aside the ₹45.83 crore customs duty demand and penalties, rejecting the Revenue’s claim of misclassification and suppression of facts.

Key Highlights of the Proceedings:

1. Dispute Over Classification of Goods

  • Secure Meters Ltd. imported communication modules/network interface cards used in smart meters.
  • The importer classified them under CTI 8517 70 90 as parts of communication hubs, making them eligible for customs duty exemption.
  • The Customs Department (Revenue) argued they should be classified under CTI 9028 90 10/9028 90 90 as parts of electricity/gas meters, making them ineligible for exemption.

2. Principal Commissioner’s Decision (2020)

  • The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Imports) ruled in favor of Revenue, classifying the modules as parts of electricity/gas meters.
  • A demand of ₹45.83 crore in customs duty was raised, along with interest and penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act.

3. Cross Appeals Filed in CESTAT

  • Importer’s Appeal: Challenged the duty demand, arguing that their classification was correct and supported by precedent.
  • Revenue’s Appeal: Sought additional penalties under Section 114AA, alleging misdeclaration and intent to evade duty.

4. Tribunal’s Observations and Key Arguments

  • The communication modules were imported separately and should be classified as they are, not based on their eventual use in smart meters.
  • CESTAT ruled that classification must be based on the form in which goods are imported, aligning with previous case laws.
  • The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s claim of misclassification, stating that the importer had consistently classified the goods the same way, with prior department approval.

5. Final Ruling (January 28, 2025)

  • CESTAT ruled in favor of Secure Meters Ltd., holding that the correct classification is CTI 8517 70 90.
  • Demand of ₹45.83 crore in customs duty was set aside, along with interest and penalties.
  • Revenue’s appeal was dismissed, and the tribunal ruled that there was no suppression or misdeclaration by the importer.

6. Legal Precedents and Implications

  • CESTAT reaffirmed the principle that classification should be based on goods in their imported state, not their future use.
  • This ruling sets an important precedent for customs classification disputes, especially in cases involving electronic components used in larger systems.
  • Principal Purpose Test: The Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered its verdict in M/s Thermax Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise. An unambiguous inference can be drawn from this particular Apex court ruling that without considering the “Principal Purpose Test” classification of goods cannot be finalized and that the same principle applies on revenue too.

In case you face any issues related to Indirect Tax-Customs, GST, Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), Arbitration matters and Central Licensing and related advisory matters in India then please feel free to get in touch with SJ EXIM Services.

We offer Legal advice and litigation support in matters related to Indirect Tax-Customs, FTP, other Indirect Tax matters & Arbitration law, all sorts of Central licensing and related matters. Come and explore the new way of doing business with us!

1. The views expressed are based on the interpretation of the relevant information/documents, applicable law, and government policy and there is no assurance that a court or tribunal or regulatory body or other governmental authority may not interpret it differently.
2.  We are not responsible for updating or revising this article on account of any change in law or interpretation thereof or a change in events or circumstances informed or occurring after the date of this article unless specifically requested for it.
3. Our advice should not be taken or used out of context or reproduced for any other purpose or transaction. Views expressed in this update are strictly personal, based on our understanding of the underlying law.
4. We are not responsible for any injury, loss or cost arising to any person who refers to this update and acts or refrains from any act accordingly. We would suggest that detailed legal advice must be sought before relying on this update.

NOTE: All Inquiries/Consulting/Advisory/Assignments are solicited via email only & it is a PAID Service only!


Discover more from S J EXIM Services

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

One response to “CESTAT Delhi reaffirmed the principle that classification should be based on goods in their imported state, not their future use”

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Let’s connect

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Discover more from S J EXIM Services

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Discover more from S J EXIM Services

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Exit mobile version