M/s Impel Electronics vs CC, New Delhi

The appellants filed this appeal against order in appeal dated 10.10.2008 which upheld the order-in-original dated 24.9.2008.

The issue briefly stated, is as under:

The appellants imported goods falling under chapter 85 and declared them as “Model KD-G 396UD Brand JVC MP3/CD receiver†in the

relevant Bill of Entry and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus as amended (Sl No. 539) and Notification No. 6/2006-CEX as amended

(Sl No. 21). Both the notifications prescribe concessional rate of duty for the goods falling under CTH 85 namely, MP3 or MP4 or MPEG4 player

with or without radio or video reception facility. The concerned Assessing Officer, after consulting the relevant catalogue, as per which the goods are

described as CD receiver with front USB and AUX/CD receiver with front AUX, denied the benefit of the said notifications on the ground that the

goods imported were CD player having an additional feature for playing MP-3 format. The appellants have contended that the goods are essentially

MP-3 players and that they should be allowed the benefit of the said exemption notifications.

No one appeared for hearing, when the case was posted nor any request for adjournment was received. Consequently in the wake of the order of

pre-deposit in the case of Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs. CCE - 2014 (310) ELT 209 (SC), to the effect that CESTAT should not dismiss the appeal

for non-prosecution and ought to decide appeal on merit even if appellant or its Counsel is not present, the appeal is being decided on merit.

As is evident from the foregoing, the issue involved is whether the impugned goods are CD receivers or MP-3 players. The Commissioner

(Appeals) has categorically stated that as per the catalogue goods have been described as CD receiver with front USB and AUX/CD received with

front AUX. The write up in the catalogue also stated that “you can also play/enjoy MP-3â€. Thus, it is evident that the goods cannot be called MP-

3 players. As the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-CUS as amended and Notification No. 6/2006-CEX as amended is available to MP-3 and

MP-4 MEPG 4 players with or without radio or video reception facility, it is evident that the impugned goods are not eligible for the benefit of the said

notifications. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. The appeal is therefore rejected.