COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR), CHENNAI-VII COMMISSIONERATE vs M/S COMPUAGE INFOCOM LTD.

Judgment text excerpt

$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 21st March, 2025 + CUSAA 56/2025 & CM APPLs. 16529/2025 & 16530/2025 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR), CHENNAI-VII COMMISSIONERATE .....Appellant Through: Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Senior Standing Counsel CBIC with Ms Drishti Saraf, and Ms Pragya Upadhyay, Advs. versus M/S COMPUAGE INFOCOM LTD. .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant- Commissioner of Customs (Air), Chennai-VII Commissionerate under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 challenging the impugned order in Customs Appeal No. 51824/ 2021 dated 22th August, 2024 passed by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter ‘CESTAT’), New Delhi. 3. The said impugned order passed by the CESTAT upheld the Order-in- Original bearing no. 08/VKP(08) ADG (ADJ)/DRI/N.D/2019-20 passed by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter ‘DRI’). 4. The short issue that arises in the present petition is in respect of the interpretation of the word ‘and’ appearing in the clause (iv) of Serial No. 13 of Notification No. 11/2014-Customs dated 11th July, 2014, i.e., “Multiple Input/ Multiple Output (MIMO) and Long Term Evolution (LTE) Products”. Signature Not Verified CUSAA 56/2025 Page 1 of 12 Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:01.04.2025 18:27:35 The CESTAT vide the impugned order has interpreted the said terms i.e., MIMO and LTE in conjunction and thereby, held that the subject goods would not be covered in the exclusion clause of the exemption notification. 5. The background of the case is that a Notification was issued bea