Case Details: Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Versus XOR Technologies LLP (2025) 33 Centax 232 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Manoj Misra & Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
- S/Shri N. Venkataraman, A.S.G., Ms B. Sunita Rao, V.C. Bharathi, Udai Khanna, Ms Prerna Dhal, Ms Smriti Kumari, Advs. & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Appellant
- Ms Umang Motiyani, Ms Neha Choudhary, Ms Nitem Jain S/Shri Ayush Agarwal, Swastik Mishra, Advs. & Ms Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR, for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The appellants filed appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the denial of exemption on import of single unit lithium-ion cells. The appellants had imported single unit cells along with other components and combined them to manufacture Lithium Ion Batteries (Accumulators), which were then captively used to produce power banks. They claimed exemption under Entry No. 512 of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., dated 30-06-2017, contending that the imported raw materials were utilized in the manufacture of a final product and thus qualified for concessional/exempted customs duty. The legal issue arose as to whether the exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017 applied at the stage of import of individual components, given that the term ‘manufacture’ under Rule 3(e) of IGCR Rules is satisfied only upon emergence of the final battery. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appellants were rightly entitled to claim the exemption under Entry No. 512 of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017, as the imported single unit cells were used along with other components to manufacture Lithium Ion Batteries, which were captively used to produce power banks. It was observed that the condition of ‘manufacture’ under Rule 3(e) of IGCR Rules is satisfied at the stage of emergence of the battery as a distinct product, not at the level of individual components. Consequently, there was no reason to interfere with the order of the CESTAT, and the appeals were dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- XOR Technologies LLP v. Principal Commissioner — (2025) 33 Centax 231 (Tri. – Del.) — Affirmed [Para 3]
