Case Details: Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi (2025) 37 Centax 72 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.
- S/Shri Kamal Sawhney, Deepak Thackur, Ms Aakansha Wadhwani & Rishabh Mishra, Advocates, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Aditya Singla, SCC with Ritwik Saha & Umang Misra, Advocates, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee was engaged in import of Small Form Factor Pluggable Optical Transceivers falling under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8517, covering apparatus for transmission or reception of voice, images, etc. A dispute arose as to whether the said product was classifiable under CTH 8517 79 90 as parts and eligible for exemption from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus., dated 01-03-2005 and Notification No. 57/2017-Cus., dated 30-06-2017, or whether it was classifiable under CTH 8517 62 90 as an apparatus or machine, as ruled by the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings in the impugned rulings, attracting BCD at 20%. It was noted that classification of the subject product had earlier been decided by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in several decisions holding that the same was classifiable under Tariff Entry 8517 70 90, against which civil appeals had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. It was further recorded in the impugned rulings themselves that the earlier Tariff Entry 8517 70 90 had subsequently become Tariff Entry 8517 79 90. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that, since the classification of Small Form Factor Pluggable Optical Transceivers had already been decided by CESTAT under Tariff Entry 8517 70 90 and civil appeals against such decisions had been dismissed by the Supreme Court, the same classification applied. It held that there was no dispute that Tariff Entry 8517 70 90 had subsequently become CTH 8517 79 90, as recorded in the impugned rulings. The Court held that the subject product was therefore classifiable under CTH 8517 79 90 and entitled to applicable exemption from BCD under notifications issued under section 25 read with sections 2(2)(a) and 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 and section 2 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Accordingly, the High Court held that the impugned rulings of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings classifying the product under CTH 8517 62 90 with levy of BCD at 20% could not be sustained and quashed the same, allowing the appeals in favour of the assessee.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd. — (2025) 26 Centax 263 (A.A.R. – Cus. – Del.) — Reversed [Paras 2, 9, 10]
List of Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. IBM India Pvt. Ltd. — (2025) 37 Centax 129 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 8]
- Commissioner v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. — (2025) 29 Centax 337 (Tri.-Bom) — Applied [Paras 5, 7]
- Commissioner v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. — (2025) 29 Centax 338 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 6, 8]
- IBM India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 27 Centax 54 (Tri.-Bom) — Applied [Paras 7, 8]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 24/2005-Cus., dated 1-3-2005 [Para 6]
- Notification No. 57/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017 [Para 6]
