##PAGE1##

C/20215/2020

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

BANGALORE

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1

Customs Appeal No. 20215 of 2020

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.BLR-CUSTM-AIR-856/2019 dated 27.12.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore.)

M/s. Lighting Technologies India Private Limited

Registered Office & Factory: Appellant(s)

No.40, Jigani Industrial Area, First Stage, Sy. No.592 & 124, Jigani Village & Hoblie, Anekal Taluk,

Bengaluru – 560 105.

VERSUS The Principal Commissioner of

Customs Airport & Air Cargo Complex, Respondent(s)

Air India SATS Freight Terminal, KIAL, Devanahalli, Bengaluru – 560 300.

APPEARANCE:

Shri R. Rangaswamy, Consultant for the Appellant Shri Vikalp Jain, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 20682 / 2026

DATE OF HEARING: 13.04.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 13.04.2026

PER: R. BHAGYA DEVI

Briefly the facts are the appellant M/s. Lighting Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. filed Bills of Entry for clearance of lighting fittings under CTH 9405 4090 and claimed the benefit of

Page 1 of 7

C/20215/2020

Notification No.01/2017 dated 28.06.2017. The goods were assessed and cleared for home consumption, however, during the post clearance audit the authorities found that the appellant was not eligible for the benefit of the notification and accordingly show-cause notice dated 06.07.2019 was issued denying the benefit of the said Notification. The Commissioner in the impugned order after analyzing the details of the imports and the said Notification partially drops the demand and confirms the demand of duty of Rs. 25,76,235/- along with interest for the products imported under Annexure I & II of the show-cause notice and also imposes penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by this order, the

appellant is in appeal before us.

2. The Learned Consultant submits that the appellant had submitted detailed write-up and photographs of the products in question vide their letter dated 04.03.2019 which was not acknowledged by the Commissioner in the impugned order. He further submits that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.1/2017 (Sl. No. 226) dated 28.06.2017 wherein it is mentioned that LED lights or fixtures including LED lamps; however, the Commissioner wants to read it as LED lights or fixtures fitted with or containing LED lamps, which is inappropriate since he cannot add words to the Notification. It is his submission that the Notification if strictly read, they will be

eligible for the benefit of the same.

3. The learned Authorized Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner and submits that the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the Notification; hence, it has been rightly denied by Commissioner

in the impugned order.

Page 2 of 7

C/20215/2020

4. Heard both sides. The appellant has imported lighting fixtures and lighting fittings classifying them under CTH 9405. The only dispute in this appeal is whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of the Notification No.01/2017 Integrated Tax (Rate)(sl.No.226) dated 28.06.2017. The Commissioner in the

impugned order observes as follows:

“18. The importer has contented that the expression used in the sl. No. 226 of the schedule II of notification No. 1/2017, ibid is "LED lights or fixtures including LED lamps" and not LED lights or fixtures fitted with or containing LED lamps; that it means not only LED lights / fixtures but also LED lamps are classifiable under said Sl no.226. I find that this contention is not tenable for the reason that the plane reading of it suggest that it is LED Lights or fixtures including LED lamps only are falling under the said SL no.226. Moreover, Light-emitting diode (LED) lamps are specificically classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 85395000 and under IGST SI no. 205 of the schedul