CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1 CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.20005 OF 2018 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.777-778/2017 dated 12.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore)

M/s. Acer India Pvt. Ltd., Embassy Heights, 6^th Floor, Appellant(s)

No.13, Magrath Road, Bangalore-560 025.

VERSUS Commissioner of Customs-

BMTC Building, Above BMTC Bus Stand, Respondent(s)

D omlur, Bangalore.

A PPEARANCE:

Ms. Purvi Asati and Shradha Pandey, Advocates for the Appellant Mr. Maneesh Akhoury, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. PULLELA NAGESWARA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Final Order No. 20065 /2026 DATE OF HEARING: 30.07.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 27.01.2026 PER : D.M. MISRA This appeal is filed against Order-in-Original No.888/2016 dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Airport & Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the import of items declaring as parts of computer through Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore claiming its classification under CTH 84733099 with BCD ‘NIL’. They have filed Bill of Entry No.8065856 dated 21.01.2015 and invoice dated 13.01.2015 issued by M/s. Acer Service Corporation, USA. Since the appellant had classified the said product under CTH 84733099, objection was raised by the Assessing Officer; the appellant had changed the classification and discharged duty of Rs.8,15,196/- for the past clearances from November 2013 to December 2014 voluntarily. A show-cause notice was later issued on 21.12.2015 proposing change of classification to CTH 85076000 / 85078000, recovery / appropriation of duty paid, with proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the demand of differential duty amounting to Rs.7,43,448/- was confirmed with interest and amount paid by them was appropriated; penalty of Rs.1.00 lakh under Section 112(a) and penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were imposed.

Hence the present appeal.

3.1. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of Rs.7,43,448/- by invoking extended period of limitation in respect of clearances made against Bills of Entry filed during the period November 2013 to December 2014 alleging that the appellant has misdeclared the imported item Lithium-ion batteries declaring its classification under CTH 84733099 as ‘Parts of computers’ instead of CTH 85076000 / 85078000, which specifies that ‘Lithium-ion / other accumulators’. They have submitted that claim of classification under a particular head in the Bill of Entry is a matter of belief on the part of the assessee and cannot be interpreted as misdeclaration. In the present case, the appellant had provided the correct description of the goods in the Bill of Entry as ‘BT.00603.041 BTY PACK LI+6C Sanyo (Battery), (computer parts)’. The appellant was under a bona fide belief that the classification of the goods i.e. ‘Lithium-ion battery’ is under CTH 84733099; declared accordingly and cleared without payment of BCD. In support, they referred to the following judgments:

i. Northern Plastic Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs & Central Excise [1998(101) ELT 549 (SC)]

ii. Densons Pultretaknik Vs. CCE [2003(155) ELT 211 (SC)]

iii. CC(Imports), Chennai-I Vs. GM Pens International [2009(247) ELT 159 (Mad.)]

iv. Lewek Altair Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. CC – 2019 (366) E.L.T.

318 (Tri.-Hyd.) affirmed by Supreme Court in 2019 (367)

ELT A328.

v. Sirthai Superware India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2020 (371) E.L.T. 324 (Tri.-Mumbai)

vi. Shashi Industries v. The Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, 2024 (12) TMI 169 - CESTAT BANGALORE vii. Suntec Agri Equipment (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, 2025 (2) TMI 752 -

CESTAT BANGALORE viii. Narayana Hrudayalaya Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, 2024 (10) TMI 63 - CESTAT BAN