Case Details: Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata vs. Twinkle Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 34 Centax 256 (Tri.-Cal)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) & K. Anpazhakan, Member (T)
- Shri A.K. Choudhury, Authorised Representative, for the Appellant.
- Shri S.C. Ratho, Consultant, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
Goods described as e-rickshaw parts were imported without the inclusion of batteries required for propulsion. The Department contended that the imported goods, when assembled, would constitute complete e-rickshaws classifiable under Heading 8703 of the Customs Tariff as motor vehicles principally designed for transport of persons. The importer submitted that in the absence of batteries, the imported goods could not perform the basic function of propulsion and therefore lacked the essential characteristics of a complete vehicle. It was argued that the goods were merely components of an electric tricycle and were appropriately classifiable as spare parts under Tariff Item 8708.99.00 of the Customs Tariff. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the goods imported without batteries could not be classified under Heading 8703 of the Customs Tariff, as they lacked the essential characteristic of propulsion necessary for a three-wheeled motor vehicle. It was observed that, as per the terminology of Heading 8703, a vehicle must be powered or capable of propulsion through a battery supplying power to its motor. Since the imported goods, even if assembled together, would not enable such propulsion, they could not be considered fully finished e-rickshaws. The Tribunal accordingly held that the goods were classifiable as ‘spare parts of electric tricycle’ under Tariff Item 8708.99.00 of the Customs Tariff.
List of Cases Cited
- Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (Bmw Ag) — 2006 (193) E.L.T. 138 (A.A.R.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Commissioner v. Radhey Shyam Ratanlal — 2017 (358) E.L.T. 965 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 2.2, 6.6]
- Commissioner v. Sony India Ltd. — 2008 (231) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Galaxy (Tuticorin) Agencies v. Commissioner — 2009 (239) E.L.T. 478 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3]
- Macneill Engineering Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2014 (310) E.L.T. 33 (Cal.) — Relied on [Para 6.4]
- P.R. Trivedi v. Commissioner — 2005 (192) E.L.T. 801 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 3]
- Procal Electronics India Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2005 (185) E.L.T. A58 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 55/95-Cus., dated 30-5-1995 [Para 3]
