Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesBasic Customs Duty Exemption Available On Digital Still Image Video Cameras Imported...

Basic Customs Duty Exemption Available On Digital Still Image Video Cameras Imported By Sony: CESTAT

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that digital still image video cameras imported by Sony are not entitled to basic customs duty exemption.

The bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that what was to be examined was whether the demand confirmed for the normal period of limitation contemplated under section 28(1) of the Customs Act for the reason that ‘digital still image video cameras’ imported by the appellant would not be entitled to basic customs duty exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by the notification dated 17.03.2012 was justified or not.

The appellant, M/s. Sony India Private Ltd. has sought the quashing of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), by which the appeal has been dismissed and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs holding the ‘digital still image video cameras’ imported by the appellant would not be entitled to basic customs duty exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by the notification dated 17.03.2012 has been upheld.

The issue raised was whether the ‘digital still image video cameras’ imported by the appellant would be entitled to BCD exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by the notification dated 17.03.2012, whereby an ‘Explanation’ was added.

The tribunal while allowing the appeal, held that the ‘digital still image video cameras’ imported by the appellant would not be entitled to basic customs duty exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by the notification dated 17.03.2012 on the basis of the decision rendered by the Tribunal would, therefore, have to be set aside and is set aside. 

Case Details

Case Title:  M/s Sony India Private Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)

Case No.: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51699 OF 2018

Date: 15.04.2025

Counsel For Appellant: B L Narasimhan, Shri Ashwani Bhatia and Ms. Anjali Gupta

Counsel For Respondent: Ajay Jain

Read More: GSTAT Infra: BSNL Leases 8th and 9th floor BSNL Bhavan To GSTAT on “As Is Where Is” Basis [READ LETTER]

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Income Tax Dept. Can’t Be Collected Twice on Same Income; Double Taxation Itself Constitutes Hardship: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the government cannot levy tax twice on...

Vehicle Change Without Updated E-Way Bill Not a Minor Technical Lapse: GSTAT Upholds Rs. 4.09 Lakh Penalty

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has upheld a penalty of ₹4.09...

GST Notice Need Not Be Preceded By Return Scrutiny When Based On Independent Verification Of Bogus Suppliers: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that scrutiny of returns under Section 61 of...

GST Registration Cancellation Notice Quashed For Not Specifying Exact Statutory Violations: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has quashed a show-cause notice proposing cancellation of a company’s...

More like this

Income Tax Dept. Can’t Be Collected Twice on Same Income; Double Taxation Itself Constitutes Hardship: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the government cannot levy tax twice on...

Vehicle Change Without Updated E-Way Bill Not a Minor Technical Lapse: GSTAT Upholds Rs. 4.09 Lakh Penalty

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has upheld a penalty of ₹4.09...

GST Notice Need Not Be Preceded By Return Scrutiny When Based On Independent Verification Of Bogus Suppliers: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that scrutiny of returns under Section 61 of...