By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 16, 2017: THE Appellant imported CD-RW and by classifying the same under CTH 8471 7060 claimed benefit of exemption of additional duty in terms of Sl. No. 261A of notification 6/2002-CE. Support was also drawn from Circular No. 55/2001-Cus dated 19/10/2001.

The subject entry reads -

Table

Before the CESTAT, the appellant submits that the Tribunal in CCE, Hyderabad-II Vs. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. – 2007-TIOL-1848-CESTAT-BANG granted the benefit of above notification since the goods are storage device.

It was further contended by appellant that if an item is specifically mentioned in the CTH with reference to its main function it is required to be allowed the benefit even if it was capable of performing more than one function.

The AR submitted that the exemption from additional duty of customs is not permissible to the appellants because the exemption is confined only to CD-Rom or RW drive falling under CTH 8471 7090 ; that the CD-RW imported by the appellant does not find place in entry 261A of the Table appended to the Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01/03/2002 and, therefore, the lower authorities are correct.

The competing tariff entries are reproduced below:

After considering the submissions and the entries extracted above, the CESTAT observed -

"5. Insofar as the grant of exemption is concerned, law is well settled that grant of the notification calls for coverage of goods strictly within the scope of the entry embracing the goods within its fold. In the present case the appellant imported CD-RW of different specifications, which is the storage device falling under heading 84717090. The family of CTH 8471.70 comprise seven goods of the nature described therein from CTH 84717010 to 84717060. "CD-Rom drive" is only eligible to exemption under the notification aforesaid. This being a specific grant, its scope cannot be expanded to cover an alien within its fold. The appellant fails to succeed because of the specific coverage of prescribed goods by the notification not covering the goods imported. Therefore, CD Rom being distinguishable by its very existence in the CTH 84717090 from 84717060, the appeal is bound to be dismissed."

Concluding that specific grant of notification excludes the general description of goods from its scope and ambit, the appeal was dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-2951-CESTAT-MUM)