JUDGMENT : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. 1. In these appeals preferred by the assessee what is impugned are the final orders dated 16.02.2024 and 11.07.2024 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in appeals preferred by the Customs Department against orders of the First Appellate Authority that had allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant against orders of the original authority under the Customs Act denying the appellant the benefit of exemption under Notification No.12/2012 CE dated 17.03.2012 in respect of inverter units imported by it. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: The appellant herein had imported “Grid Tied Solar Inverters” by claiming the exemption of additional duty of customs under Notification No.12/2012 CE dated 17.03.2012. The claim for exemption of duty was rejected by the original authority, who was of the view that the goods imported by the appellant herein could not merit categorisation as a Solar Power Generating System. In the appeals preferred by the appellant before the First Appellate Authority, however, the latter found that no evidence had been adduced by the revenue to demonstrate multiple uses of the solar inverter and inasmuch as the exemption notification had to be construed liberally in favour of the assessee, the goods imported by the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. 3. In a further appeal carried by the Customs Department before the Appellate Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal by the orders impugned in these appeals found that, in as much as the appellant had imported only the inverter component of the Solar Power Generating System and had not imported the photo-voltaic cell necessary for the capture of solar energy along with the inverter, they had not imported a solar power generating system for the purposes of the notification. The Appellate Tribunal, therefore, found that the appellant herein had not satisfied the condition for exemption under the notification aforementioned and allowed the appeal preferred by the Customs Department. 4. Before us, it is the submission of Sri. M. Balagopal, the learned counsel for the appellant that the reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal is flawed since the Appellate Tribunal considered the imported item as only a part of the system and not of the entire system that was entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. We have also heard Sri. M. Balagopal, the learned counsel for the appellant that the reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal is flawed since the Appellate Tribunal considered the imported item as only a part of the system and not of the entire system that was entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. We have also heard Sri. Suvin R. Menon, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent. 5. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that it is the admitted case of the appellant herein that what they had imported was only the inverter component of the Solar Power Generating System since they had not imported, as a composite unit, both the photo-voltaic cell as well as the inverter. Had they imported both the above components together as an integral unit, then perhaps they could have obtained the benefit of the notification that granted an exemption in respect of Solar Power Generating Systems. Inasmuch as the import in the instant case was only of the inverter component, without the photo-voltaic cell - a component that was essential for harnessing solar energy, which could then be routed through the inverter system for the supply of electrical energy to the grid, the appellant cannot be seen as eligible for the benefit of the exemption notification, as rightly found by the Appellate Tribunal. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Appellate Tribunal impugned in these appeals. The appeals, therefore fail and are accordingly dismissed.