2006 (9) TMI 36 - AT - Customs

EXIM - EPCG Scheme-Insulation Glasses and Aluminium Window frames imported by hotel- It classified under capital good and entitled for benefit of Notification No. 110/95.Cus

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of notification 110/95 regarding exemption of goods as 'capital goods' for use in hotel premises under EPCG scheme.
2. Examination of EPCG scheme notifications and definition of 'capital goods for rendering services.'
3. Compliance with conditions of notification 110/95 and relevance of notification 122/93 as amended.
4. Classification of imported goods as capital equipment required for hotel industry services.
5. Authority's satisfaction under EPCG scheme for granting import license and denial of duty concession.

Issue 1:
The lower authority held that the imported goods were not capital goods as per notification 110/95 and thus not eligible for duty concession. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined various EPCG scheme notifications and concluded that only goods under notification 122/93 were considered capital goods for hotel industries. The absence of a specific definition in notification 110/95 led to the denial of the benefit.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal noted that the EPCG scheme license was granted based on the policy, indicating the goods were capital equipment required for service. Compliance with notification 110/95 conditions, such as unassembled state and pollution control features, was confirmed. The lower authority relied on notification 122/93 and amendments to deny the benefit, emphasizing the absence of specific mention for hotel industry goods.

Issue 3:
The product description highlighted the unique features of the imported goods, emphasizing their role in providing a tourist-friendly environment by reducing noise, heat, and pollution. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods satisfied the conditions of notification 110/95 and were specifically mentioned in the EPCG license, warranting harmonious interpretation of the notifications.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal clarified that once the Central Government authority granted an import license under a notification, Customs should implement it without questioning eligibility. Denial of benefits should involve canceling the license ab initio by the Central Government authority. In this case, as the goods were covered under the EPCG license, the duty concession was deemed valid.

Issue 5:
Considering the above analysis, the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order and allowed the appeal, granting EPCG benefits for the imported goods covered under the valid license. The judgment emphasized the importance of harmonious interpretation of notifications and the authority's satisfaction under the EPCG scheme for granting import licenses.