Legal principle

A judgment or order of a Court/Tribunal is not 'additional evidence' or 'documentary evidence' under Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 or Section 149 of the Customs Act, and an appellate authority, empowered by Section 128A to accept additional grounds, must decide the appeal on merits by following binding judicial precedent on identical facts instead of remanding the matter.

Court decision

The Tribunal allowed both appeals in favour of the appellants Wipro GE Healthcare and set aside the impugned Orders-in-Appeal. It held that a Tribunal order cannot be treated as 'additional evidence'/'document of evidence' merely to remand for de novo adjudication, since Section 128A empowers the appellate authority to accept additional grounds not specified in the grounds of appeal; the issue was identical to Philips India Ltd. (upheld by the Supreme Court), was no more res integra, and the appellants had already paid IGST at the correct 18% ad valorem rate, so no additional IGST was payable.

Facts

M/s Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. imported 'LCD HB Colour Monitors without Stand, 19 inch' for use with medical equipment (ultrasound, X-ray, CT Scan, MRI) through Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai, filing Bills of Entry from December 2018 to February 2021 under CTH 8528 and self-assessing IGST at 18% under Serial Nos. 383C & 384 of Schedule-III to Notification No. 01/2017-IT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017. In post-clearance audit, the department objected, contending the goods were 'other' monitors designed for use with medical equipment and not with computers/ADP machines, attracting 28% IGST under Serial No. 154 of Schedule-IV of the same notification. The department issued SCNs dated 15.06.2023 and 19.12.2023 for differential duty under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 with interest, plus confiscation and penalties on the appellants and their Customs Broker. The original authority confirmed the demands; on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Orders-in-Original and remanded the matter to the original authority, treating the CESTAT decision in Philips India Ltd. (dated 18.11.2024, on identical facts) as 'additional evidence' under Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. The appellants then filed these two appeals before the Tribunal.

Key provisions

• Rule 5, Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 — Production of additional evidence before the [Commissioner] (Appeals)
• Section 138B, Customs Act, 1962 — Relevancy of statements under certain circumstances
• Section 3(7), Customs Tariff Act, 1975 — Levy of additional duty equal to excise duty, sales tax, local taxes and other charges
• Section 28(4), Customs Act, 1962 — Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short- paid or erroneously refunded