Case Details: Vodafone Idea Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi (2025) 27 Centax 100 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Justice Dilip Gupta, President & Shri P.V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
- S/Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Harshit Khurana & Yashisht Shrivastava & Ms Nupur Maheshwari, Advs., for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Ajay Jain, Special Counsel & Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee imported Router Line Cards and classified them under CTI 8517 70 90. The department contended they functioned as network interfaces and should be classified under CTI 8517 69 90. A show-cause notice was issued, and the matter was adjudicated before the Delhi CESTAT. The assessee argued the cards lacked standalone functionality and were dependent on the router’s control and timing modules. The department maintained they were akin to Network Interface Cards (NIC) and should be reclassified.
CESTAT Held
The Hon’ble CESTAT held that Router Line Cards could not function independently and required integration with the router chassis and software. As proprietary components without distinct functionality, they were not independent communication apparatus under CTI 8517 69 90. Instead, they were classifiable under CTI 8517 70 90 as essential router parts.
List of Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. Modicom Network Pvt. Ltd. — 2005 (185) E.L.T. 333 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 5, 25]
- Commissioner v. N.I. Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. — 2010 (256) E.L.T. 173 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 5, 35]
- Indchem Electronics Ltd. v. Commissioner — 1997 (95) E.L.T. 580 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 5]
- Vintron Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2012 (279) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 5]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 57/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017 [Paras 2, 32]
