Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 15.06.2026
CESTAT Chennai Upholds Concessional Customs Duty for Imported Mobile Phones
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .
A recent decision by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chennai has clarified the eligibility of importers for concessional customs duty on mobile phones. The case, involving M/s. Brightpoint India Pvt. Ltd., addresses the application of exemption notifications and the interpretation of conditions related to CENVAT credit for imported goods.
Background of the Case
M/s. Brightpoint India Pvt. Ltd. imported mobile phones between May and July 2015, classifying them under CTH 85171290. At import, they paid Countervailing Duty (CVD) at 12.5% on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) along with the National Calamity Contingent Duty. Later, they claimed a concessional CVD rate of 1% under Notification No. 12/2012-CE (Sl. No. 263A), arguing that they satisfied the condition of non-availment of CENVAT credit.
The original customs authority denied this benefit, stating that importers could not fulfill the condition regarding non-availment of credit on inputs used in manufacture. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in SRF Ltd., which held that importers are entitled to exemption if conditions are not violated.
Key Legal Issues
The Department appealed, raising two main questions:
- Are importers entitled to concessional CVD under Notification No. 12/2012-CE?
- Is the order granting such benefit sustainable?
The Department argued that exemption notifications must be strictly construed and that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. They contended that the condition of non-availment of CENVAT credit is inherently linked to manufacturing and cannot be presumed satisfied for importers.
Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings
1. Nature of Additional Customs Duty (CVD)
The Tribunal emphasized that additional customs duty is meant to ensure parity between imported goods and domestically manufactured goods. The Supreme Court in SRF Ltd. clarified that for CVD, imported goods are to be imagined as if manufactured in India, and the applicable excise duty (including exemptions) should be determined accordingly.
2. Applicability of Exemption Notifications
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in SRF Ltd. had attained finality, dismissing the Department’s review petitions. The Court held that if like goods manufactured in India are eligible for exemption subject to non-availment of CENVAT credit, the same benefit must be extended to importers, even if they cannot literally fulfill the condition (since traders do not avail CENVAT credit).
3. Procedural Barriers and Substantive Rights
It was also observed that the customs EDI system at the time did not allow assessment at the concessional rate, and manual filing was not permitted by the Department. The Tribunal held that substantive benefits cannot be denied due to procedural or technical limitations, especially when the importer is not at fault.
4. Distinguishing Other Judgments
The Department’s reliance on other Supreme Court and High Court judgments was found misplaced, as those cases dealt with different factual and statutory contexts. The binding precedent of the Supreme Court in SRF Ltd. was held to prevail.
Final Decision
The Tribunal upheld the order granting the concessional CVD rate to Brightpoint India Pvt. Ltd., dismissing the Department’s appeal. The key takeaways are:
- Importers are entitled to the same exemptions as domestic manufacturers if the conditions are inherently satisfied (e.g., traders cannot avail CENVAT credit).
- Substantive benefits cannot be denied due to procedural shortcomings attributable to the Department.
- Supreme Court judgments interpreting statutory provisions take precedence over conflicting lower court or tribunal decisions.
Implications for Importers
This ruling provides clarity and relief to importers seeking concessional customs duty rates under exemption notifications. It reinforces the principle of parity between imported and domestic goods and ensures that procedural hurdles do not override substantive rights.
The decision is a significant precedent for similar disputes and highlights the importance of adhering to Supreme Court interpretations in customs and excise matters.
Source: CESTAT Chennai
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379