Case Details: Principal Commissioner of Customs Versus Vodafone Idea Ltd. (2025) 28 Centax 388 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
- S/Shri Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv., N. Venkataraman, A.S.G., Navanjay Mahapatra, Sarthak Karol, Bipin Bihari Singh, Advs. & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Petitioner.
- Ms Neha Choudhary, Ms Umang Motiyani, Ms Falguni Gupta, Ms Ayush Agarwal, Advs. & Shri Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, importers of Transponder, Muxponder, and Optical Splitter Cards, classified them under CTH 8517 70 90 as parts of Optical Transport Network (OTN) equipment. The Revenue, however, classified them under CTH 8517 62 90 as Network Interface Cards (NIC). The adjudicating authority upheld the Revenue’s view, but CESTAT accepted the assessee’s classification, stating that the cards, being populated printed circuit boards (PCBs) used in OTN equipment, were correctly classified under CTH 8517 70 90 per Section Note 2(b) of Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal but found no reason to modify CESTAT’s order. It affirmed that the cards, imported separately, were parts of OTN equipment, not NICs. Accordingly, the civil appeal was dismissed, reaffirming CESTAT’s decision. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld CESTAT’s classification, recognizing Transponder, Muxponder, and Optical Splitter Cards as parts used in optical transport equipment under CTH 8517 70 90.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner — (2025) 28 Centax 387 (Tri. – Del.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
